Opinion ID: 2194534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: principally garaged as place of named insured's domicile

Text: We begin by considering State Farm's cross-appeal. It argues that we should treat a vehicle as being principally garaged in the same place as the named insured's domicile. This rule, however, is not consistent with the language of the statute. In choosing to make the UIM coverage requirement depend on where the motor vehicle is principally garaged, the Legislature chose terms which placed the focus of the inquiry on the vehicle's location. But if we adopted State Farm's argument, the focus would not be on the location of the vehicle, but instead on the insured's physical presence and his or her intent to remain in that place. See In re Estate of Craven, 265 Neb. 41, 45, 654 N.W.2d 196, 199 (2002) (domicile is obtained only through a person's physical presence accompanied by the present intention to remain indefinitely at a location or by the present intention to make a location the person's permanent or fixed home). We cannot read a meaning into a statute that is not there, Trieweiler v. Sears, 268 Neb. 952, 689 N.W.2d 807 (2004), and thus, we do not adopt State Farm's domicile argument.