In Heniser v. Frankenmuth Mut Ins, 449 Mich 155, 163; 534 NW2d 502 (1995), the plaintiff had sold his property prior to a fire which destroyed it but while the policy was still in effect. The Court found that, under either meaning, the plaintiff did not reside there because he admitted that he did not reside there at the time of the fire nor could he in the future. Id. The Court added: In this case, when Heniser signed the land contract, he affirmatively manifested his intent to no longer reside at the residence premises in the future, and relinquished his right to do so. We might be faced with a different situation if the insured has not affirmatively engaged in behavior that indicates an intent to no longer reside at the residence premises . . .Id., at 160, n 5.