Appellate judges reverse lower court and grant summary disposition to AutoOwners on claim for Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists coverage where woman had moved in with fiance
Michelle Johnson lived with her parents until a few months before her impending marriage, and was a "named driver" on their AutoOwners auto coverage. She was not a "named insured," however. While occupying a cab, she was injured by a hit and run driver who was never identified. She sought Uninsured Motorist Coverage under the family policy, which AutoOwners denied on the basis that she was no longer lived with her folks, and the UM coverage applied only to "relatives" who "reside" with the named insured.
After Auto Owners' denial, she answered Requests to Admit indicating that she no longer "resided" at the parents address and now resided with the fiancÃ©. She claimed that she was "transitioning" out of the family home, still had many things in the home including a bedroom, and had not yet changed her formal address. The Court of Appeals rejected the trial judge's holding that her situation presented a question of fact for the jury and drew a distinction between evidentiary and judicial admissions. It ruled that having "admitted" to a change of residence, she was no longer allowed to dispute her lack of domicile with the parents, regardless of what facts she might cite. The admissions were "conclusive" and summary disposition of her claim was granted.