ROHLIN v. Tracy M. Rohlin, Defendant-Appellant. (2006)

Plaintiff was operating a vehicle owned by Sharol L. Mortensen when the vehicle allegedly encountered rough road and flipped over.   Plaintiff's daughter, Tracy M. Rohlin (defendant), was a passenger in the vehicle.   Defendant commenced an action against plaintiff and Mortensen seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained in the accident.   Plaintiff sought coverage from defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide) under separate automobile liability insurance policies issued by Nationwide to her and Mortensen.   Although Nationwide agreed to provide coverage under the policy issued to Mortensen, it denied coverage under the policy issued to plaintiff on the ground that Mortensen is a member of plaintiff's household and coverage extends to plaintiff only if plaintiff was operating “a motor vehicle owned by a non-member of [plaintiff's] household.”   Plaintiff thereafter commenced this action seeking judgment declaring that Nationwide is obligated to provide coverage to plaintiff under her policy.

 Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's cross motion seeking summary judgment but erred in granting the motion of Nationwide seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.   The term “household,” as used in insurance policies, is ambiguous (see General Assur. Co. v. Schmitt, 265 A.D.2d 299, 300, 696 N.Y.S.2d 72;  Schaut v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, 130 A.D.2d 477, 478, 515 N.Y.S.2d 60).   Thus, “its interpretation requires an inquiry into the intent of the parties” (General Assur. Co., 265 A.D.2d at 300, 696 N.Y.S.2d 72), and the term should therefore be interpreted in a manner favoring coverage, as should any ambiguous language in an insurance policy (see Sekulow v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 193 A.D.2d 395, 396, 597 N.Y.S.2d 60;  Wrigley v. Potomac Ins. Co., 122 A.D.2d 361, 362, 504 N.Y.S.2d 324).   In our view, the issue whether Mortensen is a member of plaintiff's household cannot be resolved as a matter of law (see Kradjian v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 206 A.D.2d 801, 802-803, 615 N.Y.S.2d 129;  New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kowalski, 195 A.D.2d 940, 941-942, 600 N.Y.S.2d 977).   Rather, that issue is best resolved by the trier of fact, “taking into account the reasonable expectations of the average person purchasing [automobile liability] insurance, as well as the particular circumstances of [this] case” (Sekulow, 193 A.D.2d at 396, 597 N.Y.S.2d 60).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion and reinstating the complaint against defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: