Insurance practitioners know that courts often interpret the phrase “household members” in a way to find coverage for a party, particularly in an Uninsured Motorist context, but a Pennsylvania court recently took a narrow view in order to avoid the application of an exclusion.

In Ripley v. Brethren Mutual Ins. Co., a case venued in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Michael Ripley, along with two acquaintances, stole antiques with a value greater than $50,000 from his grandparents’ home while Ripley was living with them. Ripley’s grandparents filed a claim with their insurance company, Brethren Mutual Insurance Company who investigated the claim and learned that the Ripley had stolen the antiques. They subsequently denied coverage on the basis of the household exception, since the antiques were stolen by a member of the household.

Plaintiff brought suit, and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs demonstrated in their motion that Ripley paid for his room in the house with his own money, did not have access to all parts of the house and was not permitted to use his grandparents’ car. He also ate his own food separately from his grandparents. Finally, he was not permitted to bring visitors to the residence. Brethren Mutual failed to provide any information to contradict the plaintiffs’ assertions. and the court found that the policy exclusion did not apply.

Thanks to Thalia Staikos for her contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information.