Court Opinion

ID: 9707242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:06:18.054124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:29.707743
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MURRAY, specially concurring: I concur with the majority, but believe the entire litigation could have been avoided if the involved insurance company kept its policy language up with modern America’s concepts. As the majority opinion indicates, the subject property belonged to Knazel’s “live-in girl friend.” A “guest” is “a person entertained in one’s house or at one’s table.” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1008 (1986).) The same dictionary defines “live in” as a verb meaning “to lodge in one’s place of employment.” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1324 (1986).) A “live in” in modern American culture means something more than a mere guest; it is closer to a “lodger.” Lodger is an archaic word meaning (according to the cited dictionary), “one that lives or dwells in a place: Inhabitant, Occupant.” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1329 (1986).) “Girl friend,” according to the cited dictionary, means among other things, “the female partner in an intimate *** relationship.” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 959 (1986).) Following these well-defined meanings in modern American English, a “live-in girl friend” is in a category other than a “guest.” She is a “dwelling partner in an intimate relationship with the occupant of a house.” If the parties had not stipulated that Knazel’s “live-in girl friend” and now his wife was his “guest,” in view of the policy not mentioning “live ins,” I would reverse and remand to determine what the insurer did mean by the term “guest” used in the policy when it applies to “live ins.”