Homeowner's Policy Exclusion Applicable to Wrongful Death Claim
In a recent opinion, the Adams County Court of Common Pleas worked to harmonize the insurance policy phrase “in the care of” with ever-changing societal norms or what the opinion coined the “imperfections and flaws that accompany the human relationship.” Sixteen year old Elizabeth Weaver tragically died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound while at the home of her mother’s boyfriend, Robert A. Reisinger. At the time of the incident, Elizabeth and her mother were living with Reisinger. After Elizabeth’s untimely death, her natural father, Carroll Weaver, initiated a wrongful death and survival action against Reisinger. He alleged Reisinger was negligent for failing to “exercise reasonable care under circumstances where a 16-year-old teenager with a history of mental health” problems resided in his home. He argued Reisinger was negligent for failing to secure the firearm Elizabeth used. In the wake of Carroll Weaver’s allegations, Reisinger’s insurer sought declaratory judgment to determine the extent of the coverage afforded by Reisinger’s homeowner’s insurance policy. The insurer asserted that a policy exclusion precluding coverage for bodily injury to residents of the household under 21 years old and in the care of the insured barred liability. In assessing this claim, the court relied heavily on a 2006 Superior Court opinion captioned Mitsock v Erie Ins Exchange. The Mitsock court concluded the homeowner insurance policy phrase “in the care of” was not ambiguous, but rather “connoted a level of support, guidance and responsibility most often present in situations where an insured cares for a minor child, an elderly person, or an incapacitated individual.” The court articulated a number of factors to consider when assessing whether an insured is “in the care of” the insured as a matter of contract interpretation. These factors include whether there is some form of dependence—such as food, clothing, shelter, or transportation, whether there is a supervisory or disciplinary relationship, whether the living arrangement is temporary or permanent, and a number of other related factually-based inquiries. With regard to Reisinger, the Adams County Court determined there was no evidence of Reisinger’s legal responsibility to care for Elizabeth. However, the court concluded that deposition testimony clearly indicated Elizabeth relied on Reisinger for food, clothes, shelter, transportation, and at least some financial support. In fact, Reisinger’s testimony revealed that Reisinger had been planning additions to his home to make Elizabeth’s presence at his home a full-time arrangement. As a result, the court’s self-proclaimed application of “experience and common sense” allowed it to conclude that under the totality of circumstances, Elizabeth was under the care of Reisinger and her mother at the time of her death. The court reasoned that “deposition testimony reveals a functioning nontraditional family where necessities for all minor children, regardless of relationship, were provided by the adult members of the household who were involved in an intimate partnership.” Therefore, the Court concluded the policy exclusion was applicable and the insurer was not liable. Thanks to Erica Woebse for her contribution to this post.
0