member of the house that is really the primary question early on in the case there was some i think that we alleged that he might have had some form of dual residency which is allowed in some states but i think th ownership of the fact the mother also let her other children stay in the place and paid taxes on this that this should be fairly considered to be part of her household even though they are four miles apart to be honest you've got one mother using the same structure not just for game who was there is evidence that he was attempting to buy have but he never did finish paying but before the accident you know your parents buy homes for their children they pay for the homes wealthy parents that their children are by their homes for them though they would still remaining members of the household even though they married had their own children i don't think that alone would be enough i think there different from and i guess my house without and under the rules of construction or under montana insurance love that that's probably considered part of the new sure household you know i think the household that there's been a lot of ambiguous or it's unclear but i think in montana residents it's clear you can only have one residence in those statutes that have been applied by this court and in montana courts now that but i think pretty well defined residents the same is not true household and is related by one of the family members the finding language household to define a family member's only someone that is a resident of your household to me that's limiting language and which has to be construed in strictly you insure the insurer is not surprised by they can't be surprised by litigation on this issue i don't know how often it comes up but it's you know it's as you can see from the cited cases i mean it comes up all the time it seems to me that if they want to define household  under one roof or you know a nuclear family living together however they can do that in there in fact have been policies that have done that and i don't think that it would be too much of a burden for them to change that  and many other states that favors insurance if you're on the road there's a presumption that we're going to take care of people that get injured in motor vehicle accidents and i think that there's an overriding presumption in montana that makes that the logic sometimes a little on fuzz the town covered i think it's more true in the automobile context that the court is going to try to find coverage coverage for people injured on the road particularly in the context of under insured and uninsured motorist coverage which which is this quarter i think is a or at least justice thomas is that that those are viewed as portable coverages so it doesn't matter you don't have to be covered for purposes of liability under under montana automobile policy that to get the benefits of either medical pay coverage or uninsured motor not just the house and i think kind of thing or you know and i guess just lastly i think the point case suggested that the minimum you know we should have tried the question of what the household consist differently when i want to write them initial responses thank you so for the record my name is pat sullivan i represent the defendant in a fairly hard for underwriters insurance company in this case the insurance provision that we're dealing with here is a very standard insurance provision cases and definitely definitely there are different circumstances in the brief we have attempted to distinguish the early cases which mr marshall has cited in his brief and i believe we were able to a temporary departure from that household such as a college student obviously we can understand that scenario where the college student is living outside the home in another town temporarily and the somebody is gone from the household for whatever reason the enough to call for military of course for there could be other reasons and they have ten tenth's to move back to the home and they consider the parent's home or the name record evidence that he was dating his his fiance since he was a freshman in high school and that he had been essentially coming and going for a number of years and the two name involving wealthy people or any other types of husband or excuse me relatives where you have a contractual relationship to purchase a home or to acquire a home i don't think it's unusual for for instance an adult son to be on the same title as the parent especially as the parent moves along like if there's a lot of the state planning along those lines were where that's done you have objective intent was not to return but i think that's the same thing the same type of argument that was involved in frank that this court said well you know he's a young kid he's got contradictory testimony we need we need a record for the judg if this were all tried in a focused issues in one trial and we started out i mean work we're litigating about six different issues now we're down to down to one i'm not comfortable with a record that's been developed and i still have