not formally ruled on that as of yet ok i didn't know how the court want to address it whether here or in some other aspect but beyond that what i wanted to address are two main points regarding this court's  novo review of this case st what does a rented occasionally mean and that's the issue that the district court below did decide i think that it should be considered that  that definition or what that phrase mean should be considered in the situational versus a temporal sense and the nd main point is what does used as a private residence by you mean and i argue here that that  is different than language such as where you reside and that's an issue of the dish dish a court did not decide in this matter now as to that issue that the judge did decide below  he granted summary disposition or summary judgment because the dwelling he believed was being used for business purposes which turned and the issue of whether or not plaintiff had rented it out and only an occasional only occasionally for use as a residence and the meaning of occasionally was critical in the district court's decision it was not defined in the policy so the the judge looked at a dictionary definition and what the judge  quoted in relied on in his decision was a definition that defined occasionally as a now and then or not often or regularly so what the judge focused on is the l of the time that plaintiff had rented out the house to one person the plaintiff's good friend essentially as a house sitter while she was out of the house what we argue below we argue here is that a better more relevant better more relevant definition of occasionally is favorable opportunity or circumstance or state of affairs that provide a good reason that was argued below  to the district court it's argued in our briefs when i believe that the district court's error here was considerate considering occasionally in a temporal sense rather than a situational sense and there are very few cases on this subject none really in michigan which the michigan law as a initial point kind of controls here but there isn't really any michigan law the few cases and we discuss these below and there are there are no no cases no cases finding the term occasional or occasionally is that what you're well or no cases use ok generally in the way that you want to use it but i think in michigan there is no cases that discussed ok janelle and all ok there are cases that say that in determining what the parties to the contract agreed to use the normal and natural meaning of the words that are not otherwise defined in policies correct that's correct and usually what goes on to say is that looking at a dictionary is a good way to get with the normal usual sort of definition would be and  so it's important when there are these different situations to pick the one that most i guess is most relevant to the matter at hand and that's why i believe that in the situation like we're discovered discussing here a definition that says occasionally is a favorable operate favorable opportunity or circumstance or a state of affairs that provides a ground or reason for doing something is more is more relevant in terms of being situational let me be frank with you it took a little while to get my head around that that definition in this setting i buy it occurs to me that you might line up one hundred people and ask them whether that occasionally has a temporal or  situational meaning and that almost all of those people would go for temporal st and then after you explain what you think it means and unsure of the contract they might be able to get their heads around it to i did i mean it i can do it i just wonder if the more more usual meaning is is the one that we have to apply in this situation the way i kind of look at it  dressing your question your honor is that the cases that i cite provide some some insight as to at least kind of court level what occasional means and we talk about compton case where someone was selling a home and had rented it out for two years to two different people and the court said that was an occasional basis it was not part of the continuous practice of of leasing the house that was  in that case where there was a lapse of time between the two burnell contract sure i think there was around contract for about a year and then a brief time in between and then the person was still selling the home  was contacted by someone else and said here here that you know you may be open to renting it can i rented and there was another ten month series i think compared our case our cases are better facts is just one person who was renting it for the it's the occasional if you mean by that well the the argument is that and this is what it gets to the reason why this this provision isn't there an insurance company does not want to get in a situation where their insurance a commercially a commercial rental property for business purposes that's what it all arises out of and so this is not a situation where the good friend is staying in the house to help keep michigan suburban detroit and so this is just to help defray her costs not to necessarily make a commercial profit so ringback but my point is that there's a point case the solute make a profit it's not a business that wasn't intended to be a profit making venture she she is primarily wanting someone to watch the house she's getting some money to help defray has lost not a house sitting situation when they signed a one year contract a one year lease that would prevent your client for moving back in without breaking the contract well it would be breach of contract if you showed up at the door and said now you're out in fact the testimony below is that is really the opposite they had an understanding she the plaintiff because of her business and her family took her dues writer frequently when she would be in town especially when she was alone she would stay at the house that was the understand that they really more relevant and the record also show that they not only moved their residence down here to somewhere outside cincinnati and when the  when the insurance coverage didn't materialize she had the house fixed up and sold i mean that doesn't sound like somebody who was just having house sitting and back again well so after after the fact when she realized insurance company was not going to anytime soon be paying two to fix it up and have a house that she could potentially back to she decided to fix up quickly and get rid of the house otherwise it was going to be you know a drain on resources to have to to have to upkeep it in a state where you know it wasn't habitable so she decided to move on but that's really after the fact the critical point is what what what was going on and during the time of the contract of the policy before the loss  premises issue and here the insurance companies are green that the summary judgment was appropriate because the insured drawing was not used by plaintiff as her private residence and i believe that's framed in incorrectly the policy states there is coverage for the drawing owned by you and used as a private residence by you that's much different than the where you reside language which appears in the cases they cite primarily this hannah sir and mcgrath cases the michigan cases which are are relevant those cases specifically when they when they were written said that the specific policy language is critical important this language and has certain mcgrath is different than in here as we cited the durham case points out that there are different language results in a different outcome in terms of the critical issue being are using it as a private residence not are you residing there that cr friction that is the definition critical and it's important i see my time is up and i don't want to take any extra time thank you very much good morning your honour's curie rose on behalf of metropolitan group may it please the court i do want to apologize if i woke up with a little bit of a tickle in my throat so the extent that you can't hear me please let me know i'm happy to reiterate the arguments as found by the trial court below as in telling my client to summary judgment as we have discussed already here today the policy in the facts frankly are both on in big us and uncontested in two thousand and five beatrice kelly purchased this two bedroom home in east point michigan in september two thousand and sixteen she entered into an insurance contract with my client providing for homeowners insurance coverage ten weeks later that that home succumb to  fire an insurance claim was presented as a result an investigation ensued much different circumstances were realized and admitted to by miss kelly she admitted that since april two thousand and fourteen she moved herself her two children and her husband as well as her food clothing and contents to means bill ohio there she filed income tax returns since that time identifying that her home was means villa high up that she had child care expenses in ohio that she made sure to all donations and ohio and perhaps most poignant to what we're here about today she identified this property as a rental property and in fact as part of that investigation metropolitan confirm that there was indeed a lease as you point out judge for the rental of that property for seven hundred dollars a month that investigation also confirmed that her tenant miss floyd put the utilities in her home that that tenant furnished the home that that tenants clothing was in the home that th tenants food and personal items from the home that tenant also had paid her seven hundred dollars a month for thirty months before this fire and in fact misfit kelley testified at her examination earth she could during the course of the litigation that tenant was floyd confirmed that she had paid that seven hundred dollars a month and confirm that she had put the utilities and paid those utilities and were current in those who till it he's at the time of the fire as a result of that amongst other reasons but most point here the claim was denied as miss kelly was using this home for business purposes and or she was not using the do only as a private residence by herself there any  work there was no there was no evidence of that and to the question you posed earlier during the discussion with plaintiff's counsel it isn't required to be profitable and in fact the business purpose language speaks to that and if this court would refer to docket number seventy two from below court which is a copy of the policy business purposes has two definitions we focused on the nd one which is the obvious one which is the on and begin as one property gain there is a distinguishment of the business purposes language one can be for profit one can be to gain money the other one is simply renting the property there was no denial based on that there's no facts based on that a two bedroom home i believe is well compensated for by seven hundred dollars a month a nice point michigan in addition to the rents and utilities no longer be in your application but this isn't denial for profit this is a denial for rental activity which everybody agrees to in fact the discovery in this case the lower court confirms as much we took mrs floyd's deposition and she admitted all of those facts she even added that the only two people residing there for those two and a half years those thirty months was herself and her daughter and she could not remember the last time mrs kelly had later had in that home either those that discovery also confirmed and the procurement of mrs kelly's tax returns and i know it is the subject of my supplementary motion i did that for purposes of developing the record what we had during during the course of discovery and before judge during printed summary disposition was approximately fifteen pages of those fifteen pages are poignant and they are in the briefing and those fifteen pages again identifies her home and means fellow heigho her tax returns in ohio and this property in east point michigan as and i quote rental property it was not her home it wasn't where she was doing only she was using it for business purposes as a result we did file a motion for summary judgment judgment and judge train did grant the business purposes language only we've had discussion here today on the shelly judge dr you are absolutely correct we are to use it every day meaning and in fact the michigan supreme court said as much we're not supposed to constrain it we're not supposed to to provide some sort of technical meeting we're supposed to prescribe or prescribe excuse me what we all think occasionally means the exception to business purposes is if each of you are renting it occasionally for use as a residence i do not believe under any remote circumstances that two and a half years of an exclusive unfettered uninterrupted use of this home by mrs floyd is occasionally let me ask you a question just sort of out of curiosity if in order to have this house covered at the time the fire occurred what should ms kauai have done i mean what would be the difference in securing purchase landlord insurance ok i've never been a landlord which is why i was well and that's the reality it's not necessarily under the record with the facts of the matter is there are different risks associated with being a landlord than a homeowner if you're in your home you're protecting your home or maybe not falling asleep while you're cooking grease on a stove there is a difference and by the way there's a difference in the premium  lot of what i was asking about and and if you if you did have landlord and curates on something you were running you would expect that the tenant would have rental insurance on the content and it's typically par of the contract i took this floyd's deposition she did not have printers insurance to cover herself or in this case i propose ms kelley as lame all right thank you your welcome and the fact the matter that speaks to why the policy is written we as an insurance company recognize that an insured may be kate their private residence and do so any temporal basis as we want on an occasion or an occasionally basis that's not what we're talking about in the circumstance it's not this this instance this isn't a snowbird it comes back every spring this isn't somebody who's sick as miss mcgrath was in the mcgrath versus allstate matter this is somebody who vacated the premises took her contants took her family and received remuneration and maybe not profitable renomination but that's not the requirement to to live and well elsewhere and that's that's the circumstance that issue i do also want to address residence by herself that is the st and foremost requirement when we are talking about residence premises and it also talks about why this isn't a landlord policy or a landlord coverage situation those same facts and circumstances that talk about mrs kelly living are residing paying taxes in ohio on not having food contents home and receiving rental remuneration is the fact that she was not using this dwelling as as a private residence we outline in our briefing both below and for this court why that language is important i propose it's it's clear it's an ambiguous she was not using that residence by herself who was using it as a private residence this floyd was now that language has not been specifically developed by the michigan supreme court but the michigan supreme court didn't have a search tell us we consider what was going on at the time of loss what was going on at the time loss beatrice kelly was residing dwelling using a private residence a means for hire she wasn't doing it at the insured address this court is charged to applied michigan law michigan law tells us whether it's an had a server whether it's in the graph it says if you live elsewhere for two years because of illness that is not using that is not residing i cited to the banks case and in that case mr banks with the same exact policy language were talking about a year spent ninety five percent of his time away from the insured address for the two years before this incident michigan court of appeals said that's not residing that's not living and more importantly it defined a private residence what is a private residence it's a home for people actually did live beatrice kelly was not actually living  springer address at the time of the loss at the time the policy was issued a mere ten weeks earlier and that for the two years before that this was not a private residence that she was using your honour's judge green was correct when it granted metroplex motion on the basis of business purpose he would have been equally correct to find that this was not a dwelling being used by her as a private residence i would ask this court to affirm that decision ingrid summary judgment thank you a few brief follow up points as to the definition of occasionally issue as i pointed out in the briefs discussed a little bit previously there are these three cases out there that i think provide the best guidance as to determining what occasionally beason a circumstance and i would note that in one of those cases as we talk about two years it was being rented out and  the nd case there was a one year lease that was entered into and the rd case the one with the extra residence space in a farmhouse there had been numerous tenants but there was time broken up in between them eleven aspect i'd like to emphasize in this discussion about economic gain well that's important presumably in the one case where there were was leased for two years there was an economic gain the there's in those cases out say anything in those discussion saying that it was for a minimal amount and same thing with the one year lease where the recently widowed woman was going to florida and trying to figure out what she was going to do so i think the economic game economic gain to the residence residence premises issue the durham case which i cited is really the primary and most the latest michigan law on this subject and part of what this court needs to do is figure out what the relevant michigan law is on this it is an unpublished case but it's it's the only law interpret in this specific language and it's important the distinction is important as the language of cases say that you have to look at this exact policy language and have a certain mcgrath it's the languages where you reside as opposed to durham in here where the language is used as a private residence that's that's a that's a big difference durham noted that difference and said  in that situation where someone had moved husband wife moved to atlanta left behind a house that had nothing in it no tenants this situation there was someone there and i do want to quickly touch on the reference