The insured lives at the residence with her fiancé and her daughter (she is not the fiancé's daughter, if that is of any relevancy).

The fiancé is not listed on the mortgage, deed, or policy.

The fiancé has lived there since the insured moved into the house.

The fiancé is listed on the utilities and shares in household expenses.

All of the stolen property, except one small item, was owned by the fiancé.

Based on this information, we determined that the fiancé is a resident of the household and not a guest. Since they are not married, he is not a relative .Therefore, we considered him to be a roomer/tenant and advised the insured that his property is not covered by the homeowners policy.

In the insured's complaint she questions this decision, noting that she does not feel that her fiancé should be considered a roomer/tenant. They have been living together for quite some time. She considers him to be her common law husband; however she never indicated this until after she was advised there was no coverage for his property. In addition, she indicates that she used the property as well. She feels that the property belongs to both of them. Again, she was very specific during the recorded interview that all of the property stolen was owned by him and went so far as to state she thinks his items were targeted because she believed it was her ex that broke into her house. The stolen items include TV, laptop, iPod, guns, PlayStation, and many games.

In your opinion have we correctly determined the status of the fiancé as a roomer/tenant? Does the insured's argument that she feels he is her common law husband have any relevance to the Texas homeowners policy? Does the insured's argument that she used some of the property change ownership status of the items when she clearly stated that all of the property was owned by her fiancé ?She also argues that because the policy does not define the term “relative,” an ambiguity exists and coverage should be extended.

California Subscriber

The intent to marry does not make one a relative, and relatives are pretty universally taken to be related by blood or marriage, not future intent. It's not an ambiguous term; Merriam Webster Online defines “relative” as “a person connected with another by blood or affinity”; “affinity” is defined as “related by marriage.”

In order to be considered common law married, there are specific requirements that must be met. In Texas, according to TX FAMILY 1.101; 2.401; TX CIV ST Art 6243g-4, the couple must agree to be married, cohabitate as husband and wife and represent themselves to others as married. To represent oneself as married you need to refer to the other person as spouse and not fiancé, maybe have power of attorney for each other, and represent selves to physicians and other service providers as married. It does not appear that this couple has done that; therefore they would not be considered common law married. The length of time spent cohabitating does not affect their status as common law married.

This takes us to the roomer/boarder issue. Merriam Webster Online defines “roomer” as “one who occupies a rented room in another's house.” The fiancé is not renting a room, so he's technically not a roomer. A “boarder” is “one who boards, especially one that is provided with regular meals or regular meals and lodging.” He's certainly receiving lodging and meals; even if he is contributing to the household, it's the insured's house and she could evict him if she wanted to. Therefore, he is seen as a boarder.

As far as her use of his property, unless the TV was in a common area where all members of the household watched it, there is doubt that any of the property was “used” by the insured often enough to make it covered. It's unlikely she used his iPod, laptop, guns, or video games. There's no coverage for the loss.