Belanger v. MMG Insurance, 153 N.H. 584 (2006)

Citation: Belanger v. MMG Insurance, 153 N.H. 584 (2006)
Parent Document: Belanger v. MMG Insurance, 153 N.H. 584 (2006)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2006-05-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8093170/belanger-v-mmg-insurance/ ↗

Full Text

1,131 chars

We begin our analysis by clarifying the term “resident,” which MMG’s policy did not define. “The interpretation of insurance policy language is a question of law for this court to decide.” Krigsman v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 151 N.H. 643, 645 (2005). We have considered the meaning of the term “resident” in the insurance context on multiple occasions. E.g., Concord Group Ins. Co’s v. Sleeper, 135 N.H. 67, 70 (1991). In such decisions, we have defined “residence” as follows: “The term ‘residence’ in [the insurance] context, refers to the place where an individual physically dwells, while regarding it as his principal place of abode.” Id. Accordingly, the trial court applied an incorrect definition of “resident” to the facts. The trial court’s definition and decision improperly considered “intent to remain” at a location. Intent to remain is not a factor in our definition of “residence.” Our definition of “residence” considers two factors that must occur simultaneously: (1) the person must physically dwell at the claimed residence; and (2) the person must regard the claimed residence as his principal place of abode.

Other Sections in This Document (18)

Full Text