Jacobs v. Fire Ins. Exchange

In Jacobs v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 584, the named insured resided in unit A of a duplex, while her step-great-grandson lived in unit B. Both units were claimed to be insured under the named insured's homeowner's policy. The Jacobs policy defined "insured": "'Insured means you and the following persons if permanent residents of your household; a. your relatives. b. anyone under the age of 21.'" ( Id. at p. 587, fn. 1.) The step-great-grandson committed a tort against the plaintiff, who in turn sought recovery under the policy. Plaintiff argued the step-great-grandson qualified as an additional insured because he was a resident of the named insured's household. The insurer denied coverage. ( Id. at p. 587.) The trial court granted summary judgment, finding as a matter of law that the step-great-grandson was not a member of the insured's household. (Jacobs, supra, 227 Cal. App. 3d at p. 588.) The appellate court affirmed. The court began by reviewing various cases construing the term "household." The court found: "We agree that the term 'household' is unambiguous. As we explain below, that term is not subject to different definitions; rather, the various fact patterns presented to courts demonstrate a range of human experience -- some households are simply more or less unusual than others." ( Id. at p. 591.) The court identified two separate aspects of "household" to be gleaned from a review of various California cases: "First, a 'household' includes family members and others, whether related or not, who live together under one head. Second, the persons live together, be it '"in the same house"' or '"under one roof"' or at least '"within one curtilage."'" (Jacobs, supra, 227 Cal. App. 3d at p. 592.) Ultimately, the court broadly defined household as "a collection of persons, whether related or not, who live together as a group or unit of permanent or domestic character, with one head, under one roof or within a common curtilage, who direct their attention toward a common goal consisting of their mutual interests." ( Id. at p. 594.) Applying this definition, the court found the step-great-grandson was not a member of the insured's household, despite living in the adjoining apartment, since they "did not live together as part of a group having permanent or domestic character." ( Id. at p. 596.)