MARSHA HANSON AND HEATHER KINSEY, APPELLANTS,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court vacated summary judgment excluding daughter from insurance coverage because residency is a factual question for the jury under Nevada law, not a matter for summary disposition.
Whether a person is a resident family member of a household for insurance coverage purposes is a question of fact for the jury, not subject to summary judgment, under Nevada law.
[1] Under Nevada law, whether an individual qualifies as a resident family member for purposes of insurance policy coverage is a factual question reserved for jury determinat…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the issue of whether an individual is a 'resident' for purposes of a policy exclusion is one of fact for the jury”
Court cited Nevada precedent establishing that residency determinations are factual matters within the jury's province.
Marsha Hanson held a Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance policy issued in Nevada. Her daughter Heather Kinsey was injured in a Florida automobile accident a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marsha Hanson and her daughter Heather Kinsey appeal a summary judgment finding that Heather was not a family member residing in Marsha’s Nevada household when she was injured in a Flori da automobile accident and was not an insured under a Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company policy issued in Nevada to Marsha.
Both the appellant and appellee agree that whether Heather was a resident family member in Marsha’s household must be construed according to Nevada law. Nevada reserves resolution of the issue of fact of residency for the jury. In this case, although the greater weight of the evidence favors the finding that Heather was not a resident of the Nevada household, facts do exist that supports Heather’s assertion to the contrary and summary judgment was improper. See Mallin v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 108 Nev. 788, 839 P. 2d 105, 118 (1992) (Handelsman, D.J., dissenting) (the issue of whether an individual is a “resident” for purposes of a policy exclusion is one of fact for the jury); Moore v. Moore, 75 Nev. 189, 336 P. 2d 1073, 1074 (1959) (in a divorce proceeding, the husband’s residence and his intent were factual matters for the trier of fact’s determination to the same extent as any other matters of fact) (citations omitted).
We vacate the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
PETERSON, GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.