“Regular” Found to be Ambiguous and Domicile to be Residence

Lack of Definition Creates Coverage for UIM

Read the full video at https://lnkd.in/gTeJAzP and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3800 posts.

Luis Montano, sued seeking a declaratory judgment that he was entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under an insurance policy issued to his father and stepmother by Erie Insurance Exchange. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. In Luis Montano v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 1-20-1306, 2021 IL App (1st) 201306-U, Appellate Court Of Illinois First Judicial District First District Fifth Division (June 11, 2021) the Court of Appeal was asked to conclude that a relative who had his own apartment was still a regular resident of his parents home and entitled to UIM coverage.

ZALMA OPINION

Plaintiff was able to establish that his domicile was his parents home. He also often lived in his parents home even when he was away at college and when he maintained an apartment when he worked in a factory. Since he lived in his parents home “often” that fact was sufficient for the Illinois Court of Appeal to conclude he was a “regular” resident of the parents household and could tap into the $250,000 available UIM coverage that, since he spent two months in hospital, could easily take the limits. It appears that the insurer needs a definition of “regular” in its UIM coverage.