Title: United Services Automobile Ass'n. v. Swann

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

United Services Automobile Assn. v. Swann (98-568); 170 Vt. 302; 749 A.2d 23

[Filed 28-Jan-2000]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter  of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of 
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 98-568

United Services Automobile	                 Supreme Court
Association, Inc.
        	                                 On Appeal from
     v.		                                 Windham Superior Court

Kevin and Roscoe A. Swann	                 September Term, 1999
Gary Dolderer

John P. Wesley, J.

       Douglas Richards and Tracy Kelly Shriver of Douglas Richards, P.C.,
  Springfield, for  Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Robert B. Luce of Downs Rachlin & Martin PLLC, Burlington, for
  Defendant-Appellant, Gary Dolderer.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and VanBenthuysen, 
          Supr. J., and Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Insurer United Services Automobile Association (USAA)
  sought a  declaratory judgment from the Windham Superior Court to determine
  whether it is obligated to  either defend or indemnify Kevin Swann, an
  adult child, under the terms of his parents'  homeowner's policy, against a
  claim that Swann allegedly committed a tort.  According to USAA,  it has no
  duty to defend or indemnify Swann because the alleged tort occurred when
  Swann was  working a seasonal job and living away from his parents'
  household.  The court granted summary  judgment to USAA, concluding that,
  under the circumstances, insurer had no duty to either defend 

 

  or indemnify Swann.  Defendant Gary Dolderer argues that the court erred in
  concluding that  Swann was not entitled to coverage under the terms of his
  parents' homeowner's policy.  We affirm.

                                  I.  Facts

       On April 9, 1996, defendant was seriously injured when he was struck
  in the head by Kevin  Swann while photographing Swann performing an aerial
  ski jump maneuver in Vermont.  Swann,  an unmarried, only child, was in his
  early forties when the accident occurred.  His parents, Col.  Roscoe and
  Raynina Swann, are named insureds under a USAA homeowner's policy which
  covers  them and "residents of [Col. Swann's] household" in Temple Hills,
  Maryland.  At the time of the  accident, and for several years preceding
  it, Kevin Swann had come and gone from his parents'  home to pursue
  seasonal employment.  During the cold weather months, he lived in Vermont
  or  New York ski lodges while working as a ski instructor.  During the warm
  weather months  (approximately Memorial Day through October), he lived in
  tent, or occasionally in a duplex  apartment, in West Virginia while
  working as white water rafting guide.  He received mail at these  locales.

       In transition between his seasonal employment, Swann would spend
  approximately two to  two-and-a-half months at his parents' home each year. 
  He kept many of his possessions in his  parents' basement.  He always
  considered his parents' home his own and used their phone number  and
  address for his vehicle and voter registrations, and driver's license. 
  Swann's bank accounts  were in Temple Hills, and he swore residence at his
  parents' home in a bankruptcy petition he filed  months before the
  accident.  His doctors were in Maryland.  He participated in household
  activities  while staying at his parents' home and paid a modest amount for
  room and board during the time he  was there.  

       Defendant filed suit against Swann in November 1997, and USAA was
  promptly notified  because Swann claimed that he was covered by his
  father's USAA homeowner's policy.  USAA 

 

  denied coverage to Swann, and in April 1998, filed a petition for
  declaratory judgment, arguing that  it had no duty to defend or indemnify
  Swann under his father's policy because Swann was not a  resident of his
  parents' household. (FN1)  Defendant and Swann answered the petition.  
  Subsequently, USAA moved for summary judgment.  The court granted USAA's
  motion,  concluding that, under Maryland law, Swann was not a resident of
  his parents' Temple Hills,  Maryland, household at the time of the
  accident.  This appeal followed.

                               II.  Discussion

       The issue before us is whether the trial court was correct in
  determining that, under  Maryland law, Swann was not a resident of his
  parents' Temple Hills, Maryland, home at the time  of the accident, and
  thus, whether the court appropriately granted USAA summary judgment.  
  Neither party disputes that Maryland law controls this case.  

       "We review a motion for summary judgment under the same standard as
  the trial court:  summary judgment is appropriate only when the record
  clearly shows that there is no genuine issue  of material fact and that the
  movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."  Bacon v. Lascelles, 
  165 Vt. 214, 218,