This story is reprinted with permission from FC&&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.

Generally, auto insurance policies are issued to cover all members of a household. But the question of who is deemed a member of a particular household can be tricky with the complicated living arrangements common in the 21st century. For example, when a boyfriend is injured is he covered by his live-in girlfriend's insurance policy? The answer is a solid “maybe,” depending on the state law and policy terms.

The case

Anita M. Byrd was driving a car in Wilmington, Del., that was side-swiped by another vehicle. Her passenger, Jeffrey Lockhart, was injured and sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from her insurer, Progressive Northern Insurance Company.

Lockhart said that he had been living with Byrd for more than seven months and was entitled to PIP benefits as a member of her household.

Progressive denied Lockhart's claim, asserting that he was not a “household resident” of Byrd's home entitled to coverage under her policy because he was not economically dependent on her.

Lockhart disagreed, contending that Delaware law did not require economic dependency and the fact that he lived with Byrd was sufficient to satisfy the common meaning of household member.

Lockhart sued, and the insurer moved for summary judgment.

The trial court's decision

The Delaware trial court granted the insurer's motion.

In its decision, the court explained that the Progressive policy provided coverage to Byrd as the named insured and to “a relative” or “any other household resident who is economically dependent on the named insured.” The policy, the district court found, incorporated the economically dependent language from an insurance department regulation, was not “ambiguous,” and did not violate Delaware law.

The court acknowledged that Lockhart had testified that he and Byrd were boyfriend and girlfriend and that he was “[i]n the process of proposing.” It concluded that his “future intentions” were not pertinent to determining PIP benefits under the policy and that he was not insured under Byrd's PIP policy.

The case is Lockhart v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., No. CPU4-17-001788 (Del. Ct. Common Pleas March 19, 2018).

Editor's note: In this case, the auto policy carefully reflected the state insurance department regulation defining a non-relative member of the insured's household as a person who is “economically dependent” on the insured. As the kinds of non-traditional living arrangements continue to grow, agents, brokers and policyholders should consider possible limits on coverage under their policies and state rules.

Steven A. Meyerowitz, Esq., is the director of FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, and the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc. Email him at smeyerowitz@meyerowitzcommunications.com.

Special Reports /

Can injured boyfriend recover under live-in girlfriend's auto insurance policy?

Related Stories

Recommended For You