Lawrence Archembeault was insured under a personal automobile and a personal umbrella policy from Allstate Insurance Co. (Allstate) when he was sued for a serious auto accident. In 2011, a member of his household was operating Archembeault’s car when that driver struck and injured an officer Rigby and two others who were dealing with a disabled vehicle located on the shoulder of a roadway. The injured persons sued Archembeault for coverage, seeking damages under the umbrella policy after coverage under the auto policy was exhausted. Allstate filed for a declaratory judgment that its umbrella policy did not need to respond to the claims. Archembeault, the vehicle operator, and the injured parties filed an appeal after the lower court ruled in favor of the insurer.

Upon appeal, Allstate argued that its umbrella policy did not cover the vehicle operator because the driver did not qualify as an insured person. For three years before the auto accident, the vehicle driver lived in Archembeault’s home. However, during that time, he left the household for other living arrangements several times. For 14 months prior to the accident, the driver was employed and paid monthly rent to Archembeault. The periods when he didn’t pay rent, he performed various household duties such as lawn and grounds maintenance. The driver, besides rent, also started paying for a variety of personal expenses such as telephone, food and clothing which, until he got his job, were paid by Archembeault.

The lower court examined the umbrella policy language that defined insureds to include any dependent person who is a resident of the policy holder’s household and under that person’s care. It examined the circumstances of the living arrangement. Afterwards, it ruled that the driver was not a dependent person. The defending parties argued that the policy language was ambiguous as “in the care of” and “dependent person” were not defined. Therefore, coverage should apply to the vehicle driver as a dependent person.

The higher court focused on two cases it found were relevant to this situation. It determined that the policy language could be interpreted in different ways, yet still have meaning that can be relied upon to determine whether a party is an insured. The court considered a number of factors, particularly the level of financial assistance provided to the vehicle driver and the amount of control that Archembeault exercised over the adult living in his household.

In its opinion, while the driver, at various times, did benefit from some financial support, it was not at a degree that demonstrated substantial dependence. The court noted that Archembeault never exercised control with regard to the vehicle driver’s comings and goings nor was he ever involved in disciplinary actions. Further, the vehicle driver, at the time of the accident, was fully employed and his living arrangement allowed him to terminate and resume as he pleased. In consideration of those factors, the lower court ruling that the vehicle driver did not qualify as a dependent person under the umbrella policy was affirmed.

Teresa Rigby (Plaintiff–Appellant) v. Allstate Indemnity Co. (Defendant–Appellee) – No. 225 MD App 98 Court of Special Appeals of Maryland – September 20, 2015. Affirmed – 123 A 3d. 592 WL