Court Opinion

ID: 9685082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:22:48.50142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.098337
License: Public Domain

OTIS, Justice
(dissenting).
For the reasons set forth in Fruchtman v. State Farm, 274 Minn. 54, 142 N.W.2d 299 (1966), and in the dissent in Rosenberger v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 309 N.W.2d 305,-310 (Minn.1981), I cannot agree that David Viktora was a “resident” of his parents’ household. He was an adult who maintained his own home in Hibbing and was simply sitting out the steelworkers’ strike as a guest of his family until he could return to Hibbing to resume work. This is not the kind of enduring relationship contemplated by the language “residents of the insured’s household.” I would affirm and deny coverages.