KANSAS CITY – A question of whether a woman living with her boyfriend out of state was covered under her grandparents’ car insurance policy was answered based on a May 17 opinion in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division.
The district court granted defendant Farmers Insurance Com. Inc.'s motion for summary judgment as it denied plaintiff Holly Hibdon’s cross-motion for summary judgment. U.S. District Court Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark wrote the opinion.
According to the opinion, Hibdon lived with her grandparents, John and Cheryl Hibdon, in Missouri as a minor. She later moved to Texas in May 2013 with her boyfriend. Holly Hibdon was later hurt in a car accident when she was riding in the passenger seat of her boyfriend’s car in February 2016 in Texas. She attempted to receive coverage via the uninsured and underinsured provisions of a Farmers policy taken out by her grandparents.
The district court noted John and Cheryl’s Hibdon's insurance policy didn’t provide coverage for Holly’s boyfriend’s car. The opinion also states that John and Cheryl were the only ones listed as “insured” on the policy, while Holly was considered a “household driver” when she was added in 2011.
The defendant stated Holly doesn’t satisfy the requirements for an “’insured person’ for purposes of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under the policy,” according to the opinion. Considering this, Farmers argued Holly should not receive coverage.
Holly, however, stated that even though she doesn’t meet the requirements, she was covered as a household driver.
The court determined just because she is considered a “household driver,” doesn’t mean Holly is entitled to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage when the policy in fact “limited that type of coverage to the named insured, their spouse, and any person related by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of the [named insured’s] household,” according to the opinion.
The district court pointed out Holly was not living in her grandparents’ household at the time of the accident, so she wouldn’t be considered a “family member” under the policy and wouldn’t be considered a “household driver” as she had lived with her boyfriend in another state for more than three years.
The court ultimately granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.