Pour v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Background

Roland Pour, Sr., purchased a house in Champlin, Minnesota, in 2010 and obtained a homeowner’s insurance policy from Liberty Mutual in 2014. In 2019, Pour moved to Georgia to live with his second wife and thereafter lived and worked there. His adult sons, Kmontee Pour and Roland Pour, Jr., continued living in the Champlin house.

A fire on September 5, 2021, damaged the house, destroyed the attached garage, and damaged personal property belonging to Pour and his sons. Liberty Mutual denied coverage for the house because it determined that Pour did not reside there, making the house ineligible as the policy’s “residence premises.” It denied coverage for the sons’ property because they were not residents of the same household as Pour and therefore were not insureds under the policy.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the material facts are not genuinely disputed and the law entitles one side to judgment.

Whether Pour Resided in the Champlin House

The court applied Minnesota law, under which unambiguous insurance-policy language is given its ordinary meaning. It held that “where you reside” modified the policy’s definition of “residence premises” and imposed a continuing residency requirement. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the phrase referred only to the house where Pour lived when the policy began and did not require him to continue residing there.

The court recognized that a person may have more than one residence for insurance purposes. But it held that, on the undisputed facts, Pour had not resided in the Champlin house since moving to Georgia. During the approximately two-and-a-half years before the fire, he visited Minnesota only five times, spent 28 total days there, sometimes stayed elsewhere, had no bedroom at the Champlin house, stored most of his personal possessions, and changed his mailing address, driver’s license, voter registration, and financial accounts to Georgia. Although he had close family relationships with the people living in the house, sometimes stayed overnight, and regarded the house as one of his residences, the court concluded that the evidence as a whole left no basis for a reasonable jury to find that he resided there either when the fire occurred or when the policy period began.

Minnesota Standard Fire Insurance Policy

The plaintiffs argued that the policy’s residency requirement conflicted with Minnesota’s Standard Fire Insurance Policy, including its provision concerning buildings that are vacant and unoccupied for more than 60 consecutive days. The court rejected that argument. It explained that “reside” and “occupy” do not mean the same thing: the policy required Pour to reside at the house but did not require him to occupy it continuously. Because the policy did not impose continuous physical occupancy, the court held that it did not conflict with the Minnesota statute.

Coverage for the Sons’ Personal Property

The policy defined insureds to include relatives who were residents of Pour’s household. The court found that Kmontee and Roland did reside in the Champlin house, but Pour did not. Because they did not dwell together as a family under the same roof, the sons were not residents of the same household as Pour and were not insureds under the policy. They therefore were not entitled to coverage for their personal property.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, granted Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and on the merits. The court also noted that the policy declarations did not expressly identify a “residence premises,” but the plaintiffs did not seek coverage based on that issue and the court did not rely on it in deciding the motions.