Insurer for Pring-Wilson's mother argues no coverage for civil wrongful death suit

Insurer for Pring-Wilson's mother argues no coverage for civil wrongful death suit

The sad, sordid tale of Alexander Pring-Wilson has made its way into the insurance coverage realm.

Pring-Wilson was a Harvard University graduate student who allegedly stabbed to death townie Michael Colono in an early morning fight in 2003. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter; had the conviction overturned in an appeal that set new precedent regarding the admissibility of a history of violence by an alleged victim; had a second trial that resulted in a hung jury; and pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter.

Colono's estate then filed a civil action for wrongful death against Pring-Wilson.

In the latest chapter, last month Fire Insurance Company, which issued homeowners and umbrella policies to Pring-Wilson's mother, has filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking a declaration that Pring-Wilson is not covered under the policy. According to the complaint, Pring-Wilson's mother lives and the insured property is located in Colorado. Pring-Wilson was an emancipated adult attending school in Massachusetts.

Fire Insurance alleges that there is no coverage because Pring-Wilson is not a member of his mother's household and because the stabbing was not an "accident" within the meaning of the policy.

Under the Massachusetts choice of law doctrine, the federal court in Massachusetts will most likely apply the law of Colorado to determine the coverage dispute. (I'll discuss choice of law issues generally in a future post.) While I have never looked at the definition of "member of an insured's household" under Colorado law, I have looked at it under Massachusetts law. There are several cases that hold that an adult child not living with a parent is a member of the parent's household only if the absence from the household is intended to be temporary; financial dependence is also a factor.

Insurer for Pring-Wilson's mother argues no coverage for civil wrongful death suit

Massachusetts Superior Court explores definition of "resident of your household"

Massachusetts Superior Court explores definition of "resident of your household"

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports a new Superior Court case in which the court denied summary judgment to an insurer because of a factual dispute about whether the policyholder's brother was a household member. This post is based on the Lawyers Weekly summary as I have not been able to obtain a copy of the decision.

In Hingham Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gee, a tree on the property of the policyholder, Michael Gee, fell on the policyholder's brother, Wan Xing. The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to "if residents of your household, your relatives."


The insurer argued that Xing was a resident of Gee'shousehold, because the brothers and their families lived in the same apartment. The defendants argued that the brothers and their respective families maintained the apartment as two separate, financially independent households coexisting in a small space.


The court denied summary judgment, holding that there was a dispute of fact regarding Xing's financial dependence on his brother and the two families' day-to-day interactions with each other.

Massachusetts Superior Court explores definition of "resident of your household"

Questions of law versus questions of fact in determining coverage

Questions of law versus questions of fact in determining coverage

One of the most confusing issues in cases involving coverage under insurance policies is what is a question of law and what is a question of fact.

Insurance coverage attorneys can easily cite dozens of cases that state that the interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law and that whether there is coverage based on the application of facts to policy language is a question of law. We can cite as many cases that discuss burdens of proving coverage or lack of coverage under different parts of a policy. While a burden of proof makes sense where facts are disputed--the burden thus being to prove a fact which would show or negate coverage--many decisions cite burdens of proof where facts are undisputed--and therefore coverage should be a question of law.

The confusion tends to result from sloppy drafting--or thinking--by judges, but it is repeated so often that clear analysis has become virtually impossible.

The issue was brought to my mind by a recent Superior Court decision by Judge Fremont Smith. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kiely, 2009 WL 4894491 (Mass. Super.) went to trial over whether the son-in-law of owners of a homeowners policy was a resident of their household, and therefore covered by the policy.

Judge Fremont-Smith declined to decide the issue as a matter of law, because the Supreme Judicial Court has held that whether a person is a "member of a household" of an insured is "a complex decision requiring a case-by-case analysis and a balancing of all relevant factors."

Judge Fremont-Smith concluded, based on the credible evidence at trial, that the son-in-law was a member of the insureds' household. It may be that, although the decision does not make it clear, the evidence was disputed. For example, Judge Fremont-Smith cited the financial arrangements between the son-in-law and the insureds, including that the son-in-law paid rent to the insureds. If the insurer offered contrary evidence that no rent was paid, then the question of payment of rent was a question of fact. But if the evidence with respect to payment of rent was undisputed, and all the insurer offered was different undisputed facts that it believed would tend to dictate against the son-in-law being a member of the household, then Judge Fremont-Smith should have decided the case as a question of law.

Questions of law versus questions of fact in determining coverage