Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Norton
This text of 2011 Ohio 6195 (Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Norton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Norton, 2011-Ohio-6195.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
GRANGE MUTUAL CASULATY C.A. No. 10CA0105-M COMPANY
Appellant APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT v. ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM NORTON, et al. COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 07CIV1130 Appellees
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: December 5, 2011
CARR, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Grange Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (“Grange”),
appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
{¶2} Schari Norton is the daughter of Carol and William Norton, who divorced in
2005. When Carol moved to South Carolina in July 2005, she and William agreed that Schari
would visit her father in Ohio every summer and every other Christmas. Schari traveled to visit
her father for the first time according to this schedule during the summer of 2006, when a three-
week visit was planned. Unfortunately, Schari was injured on the first day of the visit while
operating an ATV owned by her grandfather on property owned by her father.
{¶3} Grange, which issued a policy of homeowner’s insurance to William, filed a
complaint requesting a declaratory judgment that Schari’s injuries fell under a policy exclusion
applicable to insured persons operating a motor vehicle. William and his wife counterclaimed
for a declaration that Schari’s injuries were covered under the policy. The parties filed cross- 2
motions for summary judgment, which the trial court considered in conjunction with their
stipulations. The trial court granted William’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that
because Schari was not an “insured” under the policy, the relevant exclusion is inapplicable.
Grange appealed, raising one assignment of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OVERRULING GRANGE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.”
{¶4} Grange’s assignment of error is that the trial court erred by determining that
Schari was not an “insured” under the terms of William’s homeowner’s insurance policy.
Specifically, Grange argues that this Court should adopt a “bright-line” rule regarding the dual
residency of children in the context of shared custody for purposes of insurance coverage.
Because Grange’s position does not reflect the law in the State of Ohio, we cannot do so.
{¶5} This Court reviews an order that grants summary judgment de novo. Grafton v.
Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105. Summary judgment is proper if there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
See Civ.R. 56(C). In applying this standard, evidence is construed in favor of the nonmoving
party, and summary judgment is appropriate if reasonable minds could only conclude that
judgment should be entered in favor of the movant. Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp. (1995), 73
Ohio St.3d 679, 686-87.
{¶6} The insurance policy at issue provides coverage for medical payments to persons
who sustain bodily injury in connection with the covered property, but does not provide such
coverage to “insured persons.” An “insured person,” in turn, is defined as:
“(a) you; 3
“(b) your relatives residing in your household; and
“(c) any other person under the age of 21 residing in your household who is in your care or the care of a resident relative.”
Grange has argued that this “insured persons” exclusion applies to Schari because she was in
William’s custody pursuant to a custody agreement at the time of the accident. Thus, under
Grange’s analysis of this case, if Schari was a resident of William’s household at the time of the
accident, then she was an “insured person” under the policy and, as an “insured person,” her
injuries would not be covered.
{¶7} In support of its position, Grange directs this Court’s attention to Plessinger v.
Cox (Dec. 31, 1997), 2d Dist. Nos. 1428, 1429. In that case, the court rejected the rule that
“[u]nder Ohio law a relative ‘resides’ with an insured when the relative lives with the insured for
‘some duration’ and with ‘some regularity” in favor of a “bright-line” test in cases involving the
shared custody of children. Id. Instead, the court concluded that “the better rule in cases
involving minor children of divorced parents, who both have custody or visitation rights, is that
the minor is deemed to have dual residencies for insurance purposes at least in cases where the
minor is in the custody, care, supervision, and control of the insured parent at the time of the
accident pursuant to the court's custody and/or visitation decree.” Id.
{¶8} Plessinger, however, has been uniformly rejected by those courts of appeals who
have considered Grange’s argument. See, e.g., Bell v. Currier, 5th Dist. No. 02-CA-10, 2003-
Ohio-3294, at ¶37; Entenman v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 541, 547-48. In
this district, and throughout Ohio, the rule remains that “the word ‘resident’ as used in the phrase
‘resident of your household’ refers to one who lives in the home of the named insured for a
period of some duration or regularity, although not necessarily there permanently, but excludes a
temporary or transient visitor.” Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. v. Taylor (1987), 39 Ohio 4
App.3d 68, 70. See, also, Hartong v. Makary (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 145, 148. In the case of
the minor child of divorced parents, “[t]he minor is a dual resident if (1) the minor alternately
resides with each parent under a custody or visitation arrangement; and (2) the minor’s residency
with each parent involves a consistent pattern between the two households for a period of some
duration or regularity.” Entenman, 136 Ohio App.3d at 549.
{¶9} Grange has also argued that, even under the “duration and regularity test,” the
trial court erred by concluding that Schari was not a resident of William’s household. The
parties’ stipulations, however, demonstrate otherwise. For the first six months after her parents
divorced, Schari’s visitation schedule involved spending “every Wednesday and every other
weekend” with her father. After six months, when her mother relocated to South Carolina,
Schari did not visit her father at his home for almost a year. Her injuries occurred on the first
day of the first summer visitation, and because she was subsequently hospitalized then taken to a
hotel with her mother, Schari did not stay with her father at that time.
{¶10} Based on the undisputed facts, we cannot agree that Schari resided with William
in a way that demonstrated a consistent pattern for a period of duration or regularity. The trial
court, therefore, did not err in granting the Nortons’ motion for summary judgment, denying
Grange’s motion, and entering judgment declaring that Schari was not a resident of William’s
household at the time of the accident. Grange’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶11} Grange’s sole assignmnet of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. 5
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2011 Ohio 6195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grange-mut-cas-ins-co-v-norton-ohioctapp-2011.