An appellate court will reverse a trial court's findings of fact only if they are clearly erroneous. Skarsten v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 381 N.W.2d 16, 18 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. March 27, 1986).
This court previously held that a similar resident-relative provision is unambiguous. Skarsten v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 16, 19 (Minn.App. 1986), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 1986).
We note that if the Freys did consider Aven to be part of the household, they would be expected to list her on the Minnesota policy with the rest of family. Skarsten v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 16, 19 (Minn.App. 1986) (determining that inclusion of a college student daughter as an insured on the family car was strong evidence that both parents and daughter considered her to be a member of the house-hold), review denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 1986). Although all of the other Freys are listed in the policy, Aven is not. Instead, Aven's parents had contracted with USAA for a separate Iowa automobile insurance policy listing Aven as the sole operator on an Iowa vehicle.
Since a trial court's finding of residency for purposes of insurance coverage is a finding of fact, it will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. Skarsten v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 381 N.W.2d 16, 18 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 1986); see also Fireman's Insurance Co. v. Viktora, 318 N.W.2d 704, 706 n. 1 (Minn. 1982); Rosenberger v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 309 N.W.2d 305, 309 (Minn.
1980). The most recent cases addressing this issue by this court are Skarsten v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 381 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986), and French v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 372 N.W.2d 839 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985). The French court reviewed numerous Minnesota cases dealing with this issue.
Bhatia directs us to our decision in Skarsten v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 16 (Minn.App. 1986), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 1986). In Skarsten, a 24-year-old daughter was the policyholder and her father was injured in a car accident.
In addition, the undisputed facts of this case are distinguishable from the cases cited by North Star, in which young adults had not yet settled down and established their own residences because they were students or in military service. See Schoer v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 473 N.W.2d 73, 77 (Minn. App. 1991); Wood, 415 N.W.2d at 750; Skarsten v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 16, 18-20 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 1986); Morgan v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 392 N.W.2d 37, 40 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Oct. 22, 1986).
See, e.g., Schoer v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 473 N.W.2d 73, 76-77 (Minn.App. 1991) (holding that 21-year-old son was resident of mother's household); Morgan v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 392 N.W.2d 37, 38, 40 (Minn.App. 1986) (same), review denied (Minn. Oct. 22, 1986); Skarsten v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 16, 17-18 (Minn.App. 1986) (holding that 24-year-old college student was resident of parents' household), review denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 1986). That she had a separate, long-term residence in Wisconsin, however, tends to favor a finding that she was not a resident of the Steinmetz home. McGlothlin's lack of self-sufficiency and her dependence on her parents, not the Steinmetzes, for financial support also are probative of this finding.
Schoer's age of 21 years at the time of the accident does not preclude him as a resident of his mother's household. See Skarsten v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 381 N.W.2d 16 (Minn.App. 1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 1986) (24-year-old college student was resident of parents' household); Morgan v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 392 N.W.2d 37 (Minn.App. 1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 22, 1986) (21-year-old college student was resident of parents' household).
1982). This court recently considered the question of household residency in French v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 372 N.W.2d 839 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985), and Skarsten v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 381 N.W.2d 16 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 1986). Rather than factually distinguish each for this case, we shall focus on the facts that lead us to our conclusion.