Harney v. Homesite Insurance Company

Filing 43

ORDER granting 34 Motion for Summary Judgment- So Ordered by District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. on 7/8/2019. (Barletta, Barbara)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

WANDA HARNEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

HOMESITE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

C.A. No. 17-459-JJM-PAS

______________________ )
ORDER
Homesite Insurance Company issued an insurance policy to Wanda Harney for
a home at 150 Church Street in Bradford, Rhode Island ("Bradford Property"). A fire
damaged the house and, after investigating the claim, Homesite denied coverage. Ms.
Harney brought this lawsuit to force Homesite to provide coverage for her losses that
resulted from the fire. Homesite moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 34), arguing
that Ms. Harney did not reside at the Bradford Property and so it was not an "insured
location" under the policy terms.

1

Ms. Harney objects, asserting that she was a

resident of the property and that her son was not. Applying the clear policy terms to
the undisputed facts, the Court finds that there is no coverage for the loss and
Homesite's motion is GRANTED.

In the alternative, Homesite asks the Court to find that Ms. Harney's son,
Clem Ramsey, was an insured under the policy and that because he pleaded nolo
contendre to first degree arson at the Bradford Property, the exclusion for intentional
acts applies. See ECF No. 34-5. Because the Court finds for Homesite based on Ms.
Harney's residency, it declines to reach this argument.
1

Summary judgment is called for when the pleadings and discovery materials
show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact," so that "the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In determining
whether summary judgment is proper, the court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non·moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor.

Continental Cas. Co. v. Canadian Univ. Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 370, 373 (1st. Cir. 1991).
In this case, the homeowner's insurance policy makes clear that the insurance
covers property where the insured lives. It defines the "Insured location" as the
"residence premises" and the "residence premises" as "[t]hat part of any other
building; where you reside and which is shown as the 'residence premises' in the
Declaration." Therefore, for the Bradford Property to be a "residence premises" and
so an insured location, Ms. Harney had to reside there. 2 In order to determine
residency, the Court must look at the time spent at the location, the nature of the
living arrangements and types of activities undertaken there, and the person's
intention relative to living at the property. Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Can·em, 577
A.2d 980, 984 (R.I. 1990).
The undisputed evidence shows that Ms. Harvey's primary residence was 31
Mosena Drive, Charlestown, Rhode Island ("Charlestown Property"), not the
Bradford Property. Ms. Harney testified that she was living at the Charlestown
Property at the time of the fire and during the policy's effective dates. ECF No. 35 at

2 In the Renewal Declaration, Ms. Harney represented that the Bradford
Property was her "primary residence." ECF No. 39·1.

2

,[ 10. Her driver's license and medical records listed her residence at the Charlestown
Property. Id. at ,[,[ 12·13. She told others that she resided at the Charlestown
Property and she had her packages delivered to the Charlestown Property. Id

at~,[

11, 13. Moreover, the .fire marshall reported his observation that the Bradford
Property was uninhabited when the fire occurred. ECF No. 39·5 at 3,

,I 13.

Ms. Harney has offered no competent evidence that the Bradford Property was
her primary residence or that she resided at the property with the intent to remain
there for more than a transitory amount of time. She offers no evidence of the type
of activities she undertook there, or her intentions vis·a·vis that property. Because
the Court finds that Ms. Harney did not reside at the Bradford Property, it was not
an insured location under the policy and therefore Homesite properly denied coverage
for the fire loss. The Court GRANTS Defendant Homesite Insurance Company's
Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 34.

John J . McContell, Jr.
United States District Judge
July 8, 2019

3