His sons lived there full-time – but they weren't covered either

Legal Insights

By Matthew Sellers

Dec 03, 2025Share

The Eighth Circuit has ruled policyholders must actively reside in properties to claim coverage – validating insurers' strict interpretation of "residence premises" language in homeowners’ policies. 

In a ruling issued December 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with Liberty Mutual in a dispute over whether the company should have paid for damage from a fire at a Minnesota home. The case hinged on a straightforward question: Can someone still claim coverage for a house they own but no longer live in? 

The answer, according to the court, was no. 

The story began in 2010 when Roland Pour Sr. bought a house in Champlin, Minnesota, where he lived with his wife and two children. In 2015, he purchased a homeowners policy from Liberty Mutual. In 2019, Pour Sr. relocated to Bethlehem, Georgia to live with his second wife, but kept the Minnesota property. His sons, Kmontee and Roland Jr., continued living in the Champlin home while their father paid the mortgage and property taxes from afar. 

Pour Sr. wasn't completely absent. He visited Minnesota a couple of times each year, with trips lasting two days to two weeks. But his mailing address, driver's license, voter registration, and financial accounts had all moved to Georgia. In September 2021, a fire damaged the Champlin home, attached garage, and personal property inside. 

Pour Sr. filed a claim expecting coverage. Liberty Mutual declined, arguing he hadn't "resided" at the Champlin home for three years. The company also denied coverage for his sons' personal property, saying they were not "residents of Pour Sr.'s household" and therefore not insureds under the policy. 

The policy defined "residence premises" to include "the one family dwelling, other structures, and grounds" but only "where you reside." The court found this language unambiguous and applied the dictionary definition of reside: "to dwell permanently or for a considerable time." 

Pour Sr. argued the provision merely described which property he had insured, not a continuing condition. The court disagreed, noting his residency status hadn't changed between when the policy was issued in May 2021 and the fire in September 2021. During the policy period, he visited Minnesota once and didn't stay at the Champlin home. In the two years preceding the fire, he visited three or four times, never staying more than two weeks, often sleeping at his cousin's nearby home. 

The ruling acknowledged that a person can have more than one residence for insurance purposes. So-called "snowbirds" aren't automatically excluded from coverage everywhere. But the court emphasized this requires fact-specific analysis. 

On the sons' coverage, Minnesota courts use a three-factor test for household residency: living under the same roof as the named insured, having a close and informal relationship, and substantial intended duration. The court found the sons didn't qualify because they weren't dwelling with their father under the same roof. As the court noted, a household is "something more than a group of individuals who occasionally spend time together in the same place." 

For insurers, the decision validates using policy definitions as coverage conditions. Liberty Mutual's interpretation held up under appellate review, providing clear grounds to deny claims that don't meet residence requirements. 

Pour Sr.'s claim for his own personal property stored in the home was not denied and was settled separately. But on dwelling coverage and the sons' personal property, the insurer prevailed. 

This decision is binding across the Eighth Circuit's eight states but could influence courts elsewhere.