Hanson v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hanson v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

792 So. 2d 710, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12256, 2001 WL 991735

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 31, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-1146

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 792 So. 2d 710 (Hanson v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanson v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, 792 So. 2d 710, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12256, 2001 WL 991735 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marsha Hanson and her daughter Heather Kinsey appeal a summary judgment finding that Heather was not a family member residing in Marsha’s Nevada household when she was injured in a Flori[711]*711da automobile accident and was not an insured under a Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company policy issued in Nevada to Marsha.

Both the appellant and appellee agree that whether Heather was a resident family member in Marsha’s household must be construed according to Nevada law. Nevada reserves resolution of the issue of fact of residency for the jury. In this case, although the greater weight of the evidence favors the finding that Heather was not a resident of the Nevada household, facts do exist that supports Heather’s assertion to the contrary and summary judgment was improper. See Mallin v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 108 Nev. 788, 839 P.2d 105, 118 (1992) (Handelsman, D.J., dissenting) (the issue of whether an individual is a “resident” for purposes of a policy exclusion is one of fact for the jury); Moore v. Moore, 75 Nev. 189, 336 P.2d 1073, 1074 (1959) (in a divorce proceeding, the husband’s residence and his intent were factual matters for the trier of fact’s determination to the same extent as any other matters of fact) (citations omitted).

We vacate the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Marsha Hanson and her daughter Heather Kinsey appeal a summary judgment finding that Heather was not a family member residing in Marsha’s Nevada household when she was injured in a Flori[711]*711da automobile accident and was not an insured under a Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company policy issued in Nevada to Marsha.

Both the appellant and appellee agree that whether Heather was a resident family member in Marsha’s household must be construed according to Nevada law. Nevada reserves resolution of the issue of fact of residency for the jury. In this case, although the greater weight of the evidence favors the finding that Heather was not a resident of the Nevada household, facts do exist that supports Heather’s assertion to the contrary and summary judgment was improper. See Mallin v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 108 Nev. 788, 839 P.2d 105, 118 (1992) (Handelsman, D.J., dissenting) (the issue of whether an individual is a “resident” for purposes of a policy exclusion is one of fact for the jury); Moore v. Moore, 75 Nev. 189, 336 P.2d 1073, 1074 (1959) (in a divorce proceeding, the husband’s residence and his intent were factual matters for the trier of fact’s determination to the same extent as any other matters of fact) (citations omitted).

We vacate the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

PETERSON, GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 So. 2d 710, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12256, 2001 WL 991735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-liberty-mutual-fire-insurance-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack