SCHILL v.

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY

2014-Ohio-4527

FACTS:
Dr. Miles Cobrun was riding his bicycle in Newburn Township Ohio when he was struck by an SUV
driven by Robert Schill (Robert). Cobrun died later that day from his injuries. Cobrun’s wife, Peggy
Spaeth, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Robert and his insurer. Robert’s vehicle was insured
with a liability coverage limit of $500,000. Spaeth settled with his insurer and Robert sought
additional coverage under the personal umbrella liability of his parents (James and Jean) which was
issued by Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC). Under the terms of the policy, an insured includes a
resident relative for any occurrence involving an automobile they own, lease, rent or use. By
definition, a resident relative is a person related to the insured by blood, marriage or adoption that
is the resident of your household and whose legal residence of domicile is the same as yours.

Spaeth contends that Robert was a definitional insured under the policy as a “resident relative” who
shares the same domicile with James. She further argued that James could be “domiciled” in Florida
for some purposes and “domiciled” in Ohio “for insurance coverage purposes.” On the other hand,
CIC submits James’ admission that he has considered his home to be the house in Florida since 1993
and the steps he has taken to give the impression his home is in Florida, should be enough to prove
his domicile is in Florida, not Ohio. The trial court found that Robert did not meet the definition of
“resident relative” since he did not have the same domicile as either of his parents, the names insured,
which was required under the CIC policy.

ISSUE:
Did Schill share the same “legal residence of domicile” with his parents at the time of the accident?

HELD:
NO. In order to change one’s domicile, there must be actual abandonment of the first domicile,
intention not to return to the first domicile, and acquisition of a new domicile in another place with
the intention of making the new domicile a permanent home. The acts of the person must correspond
with the purpose of changing one’s domicile. Because James sold his home, moved all of his belonging
from Ohio to Florida, let his Ohio driver’s license expire, found new doctors, changed his voter
registration, manages his finances through Florida bank accounts, and is careful not to stay in Ohio
long enough to trigger tax consequences, his intent to be domiciled in Florida is clear.

Further, the nature of James’ contract with Ohio is transient – he works, and then he leaves. He has
stated that he intends to return to Ohio to work for as long as he is physically able. This means that
he will stop coming to Ohio when he is physically unable to work. At that point, he will remain in
Florida. Undoubtedly, he works in Ohio. But Florida is his domicile. Hence, Robert did not share the
same “legal residence of domicile” with his parents and he cannot be considered as an insured
resident relative under the umbrella policy.