Woman's statement that she no longer "lived with" insured is not dispositive of domicile
Crystal McCaskill was injured in a car accident. There were questions about where she resided at the time of the wreck and USAA refused to cover her medical expenses. USAA was the insurer of the car owned by her boyfriend, and since the collision happened out-of-state in Nevada, McCaskill was not entitled to PIP benefits unless she was actually an insured.
When their depositions were taken, her boyfriend said McCaskill and he were living at one address, together, but McCaskill said she they were not. She testified that during that three-week period her boyfriend was living with his folks. It turned out that they were moving and that they had belongings at both residences. The court concluded that McCaskill's statement was not a "binding judicial admission" that she was not insured: rather, it created a question of evidentiary fact with regard to whether the couple were actually living together at the time the injuries were suffered.