I’m thrilled to sit down with Simon Glairy, a renowned authority in insurance law and Insurtech, whose expertise in risk management and AI-driven risk assessment has shaped industry perspectives for years. With a keen eye on property coverage disputes, Simon brings unparalleled insight into complex cases like the recent Eighth Circuit ruling involving Liberty Mutual and a Minnesota homeowner. Today, we’ll dive into the nuances of residency requirements in insurance policies, explore how courts interpret “residence premises,” unpack the implications for absentee homeowners, and discuss the broader impact on insurers and policyholders across multiple states.
Can you walk us through how the Eighth Circuit defined “residence premises” in the Liberty Mutual case involving Roland Pour Sr., and why this strict interpretation matters for homeowners?
Absolutely, Abigail. In this case, the Eighth Circuit leaned on the explicit language of Liberty Mutual’s policy, which defined “residence premises” as the dwelling and grounds “where you reside.” The court turned to a dictionary definition of “reside,” meaning to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, and found this wording unambiguous. For Roland Pour Sr., who had relocated to Georgia and only visited his Champlin, Minnesota home sporadically, this meant he didn’t meet the residency condition for coverage after a fire damaged the property in 2021. This strict interpretation is a wake-up call for homeowners—it underscores that simply owning a property isn’t enough; active, consistent residency is often a prerequisite for coverage. I recall a similar case years ago where a client assumed seasonal visits to a vacation home qualified as residency, only to have their claim denied after a storm. It’s a harsh lesson, and it shows how critical it is to understand policy language before a loss occurs.
What do you think played into the court’s decision to deny coverage for Pour Sr. based on his limited visits to Minnesota, and how is residency typically evaluated in these disputes?
The court’s decision hinged on the reality of Pour Sr.’s connection to the Champlin home. Despite owning it and paying the mortgage, his life—mailing address, driver’s license, voter registration—was rooted in Georgia, and his visits to Minnesota were brief, sometimes just two days, with only three or four trips in the two years before the fire. The court saw this as insufficient to establish residency, especially since during the policy period in 2021, he visited once and didn’t even stay at the house. It felt like a clear disconnect, almost as if the property was more of a relic of his past than a current home. In evaluating residency, courts generally follow a multi-step process: first, they look at the policy’s specific language around “reside”; second, they assess physical presence—how often and how long someone stays at the property; third, they consider intent, like where someone’s legal and financial ties are based; and finally, they weigh consistency over the policy period. I’ve seen cases where a client’s emotional attachment to a family home clouded their judgment about legal residency, and it’s heartbreaking to explain that sentiment doesn’t count in court. It’s a cold, hard look at the facts, and Pour Sr.’s situation didn’t pass muster.
Let’s dive into the Minnesota three-factor test for household residency that was applied to Pour Sr.’s sons. Can you break down these factors and share a scenario where they’ve shaped an insurance dispute?
Certainly. The Minnesota three-factor test determines if someone qualifies as a resident of the named insured’s household, which is key for extending coverage to family members. The first factor is living under the same roof—there must be a shared physical space with the policyholder. The second is a close, informal relationship, like between parent and child, implying regular interaction. The third is substantial intended duration, meaning the arrangement isn’t just temporary. In Pour Sr.’s case, his sons, Kmontee and Roland Jr., lived full-time in the Champlin home, but since their father wasn’t there with them, they failed the first factor outright, and the court didn’t see them as part of his household. I remember a case involving a divorced couple where the father, the policyholder, had moved out but kept the family home insured for his teenage daughter who stayed there. A flood damaged her belongings, and the insurer denied coverage because the father wasn’t physically present under the same roof, despite their tight bond and his financial support. It was a gut punch for the family—they assumed “household” was more about connection than location. These factors can feel rigid, but they’re designed to prevent overly broad claims, and courts stick to them closely.
The court mentioned that “snowbirds” might qualify for coverage with multiple residences. How does this fact-specific analysis differ from Pour Sr.’s situation, and what does it take to meet residency requirements in such cases?
The “snowbird” concept is fascinating because it acknowledges that people can genuinely reside in more than one place, like retirees who split time between a northern home in summer and a southern one in winter. The Eighth Circuit emphasized a fact-specific analysis, meaning courts look at the details—how much time is spent at each location, the nature of the stays, and evidence of intent to maintain both as residences. In Pour Sr.’s case, his visits to Minnesota were too infrequent and short, often not even staying at the Champlin home, which made it hard to argue dual residency. By contrast, a snowbird might spend six months in each location, maintain utilities, furnishings, and community ties in both, and show a pattern of regular return. I’ve advised clients who successfully claimed coverage by documenting their split time—think calendars, travel receipts, even neighbor testimonies—to prove both homes were true residences. It’s about painting a picture of lived experience, not just ownership, and Pour Sr.’s minimal presence couldn’t compete with that standard. The difference lies in consistency and depth of engagement with the property.
Given Liberty Mutual’s victory in this ruling across the Eighth Circuit’s eight states, how do you see this decision influencing future coverage disputes, and what strategies might insurers adopt moving forward?
This ruling is a significant win for insurers, as it reinforces their ability to enforce strict residency requirements and deny claims when policyholders aren’t truly living in the insured property. Across the Eighth Circuit’s eight states, and potentially beyond as persuasive precedent, I expect to see insurers scrutinizing residency more aggressively, especially in cases of absentee owners or seasonal properties. One strategy might be tightening policy language further, ensuring “reside” is explicitly tied to measurable presence, perhaps even adding clauses about minimum days spent at the property. Another approach could be leveraging technology—think AI tools to track utility usage or geolocation data—to flag properties that don’t seem actively occupied. I’ve noticed a trend in recent years where insurers are becoming more proactive, reaching out to policyholders after detecting long absences to confirm residency status. While this protects their bottom line, it also risks alienating customers who feel policed. It’s a delicate balance, but this decision gives insurers a stronger legal footing to stand firm on denials, and I suspect we’ll see an uptick in disputes as policyholders push back.
What is your forecast for the future of residency disputes in insurance law, especially with evolving lifestyles like remote work and multiple homes?
I think we’re heading into a complex era for residency disputes. With remote work and the rise of digital nomads, more people are splitting time across multiple locations, blurring the lines of what “reside” means. I foresee courts grappling with modern lifestyles, potentially pushing for updated policy language or new legal tests to account for flexible living arrangements. Insurers might face pressure to offer hybrid policies that cover multiple residences without prohibitive costs, but they’ll likely resist broad interpretations to manage risk. I’ve had clients express frustration over outdated definitions that don’t match their reality—working from a laptop in one state while owning a family home in another. My hunch is we’ll see a wave of litigation over the next decade as these tensions play out, possibly leading to legislative changes if courts can’t keep pace. It’s an evolving frontier, and both insurers and policyholders need to stay nimble to navigate what’s coming.
