Generally, where the alleged resident is a minor, the intent that is relevant is that of the person or entity with legal custody. Farmers Inc. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver, App., 154 Ariz. 174, 741 P.2d 307, 311 (1987) (citations omitted). The term "residents of [the policyholder's] household" is not defined in the homeowners policy.
¶ 14 Third, a household contemplates a settled or permanent status; it requires a degree of permanency and intention to integrate into the family unit and remain a member for more than a mere transitory period. Id. at 393, 573 P.2d at 84 (wife did not become member of parents' household because she lived with them temporarily while relocating to a different town); Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Oliver, 154 Ariz. 174, 178–80, 741 P.2d 307, 311–13 (App.1987) (child who stayed temporarily with grandparents due to father's injury, unemployment, and small apartment was not resident of grandparents' household). Thus, a relative who lives in a home only on a temporary basis does not become a member of the household.
See, e.g., American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thiem, 498 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 503 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 1993); Farmers Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 154 Ariz. 174, 741 P.2d 307, 311 (App. 1987); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 151 Ariz. 591, 729 P.2d 945, 946 (App. 1986). The court in Thiem added that the "duration of the stay" factor should be applied broadly to the relationship of the persons to each other and to the household, rather than to the length of time of the visits.
When applying this test, "no one [factor] is controlling, but all . . . must combine to a greater or lesser degree." Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver, 154 Ariz. 174, 178, 741 P.2d 307, 311 (Ariz. 1987); Easter as next friend of M.D.E. v. Providence Lloyds Ins. Co., 17 S.W.3d 788, 791 (Tex. 2000). Each of these relevant factors is discussed, in turn, below.
"[N]o one [factor] is controlling, but all . . . must combine to a greater or lesser degree." Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Oliver, 154 Ariz. 174, 178, 741 P.2d 307, 311 (Ct. App. 1987). Of course, many of these factors here favor Defendant, but in Novak as well the factors generally favored the insurer.
See, e.g., Farmers Ins. Co. v. Plunkett, 687 P.2d 470, 472 (Colo.Ct.App.1984); Engerbretsen v. Engerbretsen, 675 A.2d 13, 19 (Del.Super.Ct.1995); VanBebber v. Roach, 252 S.W.3d 279, 287 (Tenn.Ct.App.2007). Courts agree that determining whether an individual falls within the meaning of the phrase requires a case-specific analysis of the particular facts and circumstances, see, e.g., Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Titus, 849 P.2d 908, 910 (Colo.Ct.App.1993); Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n v. Williams, 321 Ill.App.3d 310, 254 Ill.Dec. 231, 746 N.E.2d 1279, 1282 (2001); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 38 Wash.App. 6, 684 P.2d 744, 746 (1984), and that determination of the issue is a question of fact. See8 Couch on Insurance, at § 114:12. Consequently, technical notions of legal residence and domicile are not controlling. See, e.g., Farmers Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 154 Ariz. 174, 741 P.2d 307, 312 (App.1987); Ehrhard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 274 So.2d 911, 916 (La.Ct.App.1973). We agree with the list of nonexclusive factors set forth by the West Virginia Supreme Court in Glen Falls Ins. Co. v. Smith, 217 W.Va. 213, 617 S.E.2d 760, 765 (2005), to consider in making the determination:
We hold only that it is not controlling. In that regard, we agree with the Arizona Supreme Court's holding in Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Oliver, 154 Ariz. 174, 741 P.2d 307 (1987). Defendants rely on that case to argue that a child's legal domicile should be the test of where the child resides.
The parties in Tencza apparently did not raise an issue as to any of the other residency factors, such as those later articulated in Duzykowski. Our reading of Tencza and Duzykowski as consistent is supported by our decision in Farmers Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 154 Ariz. 174, 741 P.2d 307 (App. 1987). The Farmers homeowners' insurance policy issued to the Olivers excluded coverage of bodily injury to any resident of their household.
To the contrary, the majority of state courts to consider the issue have held that a minor child is able to have a residence other than the household of a parent or legal custodian for purposes of insurance coverage. See, e.g., Farmers Ins. Co. of Az. v. Oliver, 741 P.2d 307, 312 (Ariz. 1987); Crawley v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 979 P.2d 74, 80 (Haw.Ct.App. 1999);Umland v. Nat'l Cas. Co., 81 P.3d 500, 503-04 (Mont. 2003); Farmers Ins. Co. of Or. v. Jeske, 971 P.2d 422, 426 (Or.Ct.App. 1998); Barricelli v. Am. Universal Ins. Co., 583 A.2d 1270, 1271-72 (R.I. 1990).
Other Courts rely on similar factors. See e.g., [Farmers Ins. Co. v.] Oliver, 154 Ariz. 174, 741 P.2d [307,] 311 [ (Ct.App.1987) ]; [Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v.] Titus, 849 P.2d [908,] 910 [ (Colo.Ct.App.1993) ]; [Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n v.] Williams, 321 Ill.App.3d 310, 254 Ill.Dec. 231, 746 N.E.2d [1279,] 1282 [ (2001) ]; Vierkant v. AMCO Ins. Co., 543 N.W.2d 117, 122 (Minn.Ct.App.1996); VanBebber [v. Roach ], 252 S.W.3d [279,] 287 [ (Tenn.Ct.App.2007) ]; 8 Couch on Insurance, at § 114:13, and cases collected therein.2014 ND 39, ¶ 9, 842 N.W.2d 912 (emphasis added).