A No-Fault Insurance claimant’s eligibility for coverage occasionally hinges upon his/her residence. For example, in addition to coverage being afforded to any passenger or pedestrian who is injured as a result of the use or operation of the insured vehicle, the No-Fault Regulations, 11 NYCRR 65-1, define an Eligible Injured Person (EIP) as, inter alia, “(a) the named insured and any relative who sustains personal injury arising out of the use or operation of any motor vehicle …” The term “relative” is defined as “a spouse, child, or other person related to the named insured by blood, marriage, or adoption (including a ward or foster child), who regularly resides in the insured’s household, including any such person who regularly resides in the household, but is temporarily living elsewhere.” 11 NYCRR 65-1, “Other Definitions,” §G. This last definition is often referred to as a “resident-relative,” as the EIP must not only be a relative of the insured, but must also reside with the insured. Other states have similar residence requirements.

In the recent case of Sure Way NY v. Travelers Ins. Co., 63 Misc.3d 142(A) (App. Term 2d, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2019), the defendant-insurer moved for summary judgment dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff’s assignor was not a “family member” of the insured and therefore did not qualify as an EIP under the subject Florida policy. The court held: “Upon the record presented, we find that defendant sufficiently established that plaintiff’s assignor did not reside in the household of the Florida policyholder, but, rather, in Brooklyn, and thus was not a “family member” of the insured as defined by the insurance policy at issue.”