ÿWPC} ̓#à\Ù¢ÑØÝ-Îß‘}IØïÚ•Æ žcaf’fôu¦±S¸wlȨºý,(½ Î#a¡`¯ ûw5*»¨}ÜÑœ?I:-^›~€ÏùFŒ\U×ХΤˆ¿gQûw8Ïßœ|Âà! ɽ•C*ìa û£‡ÐQ£>?üNw=«¬Ã;J"®æÆMÙÌ_Ì9ÌJžöKVí^K™œgÀË5L10Í.ºÎVòÇ·jÑAQ~…Ѿ2ß®3¾«¢lüZµÿÁ¡`ö1ÎÎ(SÅŠ—¼hŲlYüÍTM0± „'ôMq7ý<5Oa“Ç͆Ì?zbÌnºÍÓ^RÃÒ•‡|ÓãYŽ›¿"˼ÓÂ]å\ø? ¶´!½§ã_k2ñ~çÅ0 ;‡$>¡³¸šÊ~FïÍ¢òJc!“Þ—˜×¢Î=~£©í¢ûõÎôÊxÙ AŠ+3 ü ;7Ž}hÁørë°^ýª¥Áˆ~Ò2[ÊfÁ7®.]Ý/³<ˆ€9õ™h¦ <¸Ú³i.gYú ´=;‚\ïaˆ<“'É» è ¦HQT¨TnìOtJºNLD2VP¾]8l`îAÛöŸ•‹¼z:š<-Œ’)ÝwÔU¿üôëÍ×j¯)# >UNI %— 0³U<Pw@Œ4Ìàï 0÷÷ AQî`? 0DŸ )ã U: F F F N N N N N N N N N N N N BOÆl 0D2 0Dv 0Dºº D/þþ B- D3J˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(‹7ÿ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ7€ü†XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€Xd|XXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman -U.U/ î0Ó€1Ó€2Ó€3Ó€4Ó€5Ó€An~<$<3|xA þÝ ƒ Ö$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€X„dXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Mother€filed€for€divorce€on€or€about€July€17,€1996.€€The€divorce€becameÐ ° Ðfinal€on€July€1,€1997.(§(3Ö$¤¤Ý ƒ7ÿ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ7€,¢XXdðdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€XTvXXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó !" %Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ VÝ ƒ GÛ$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XdzXXXÔÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓ€€After€State€Farm€filed€its€complaint€in€circuit€court€but€before€Mother€andÐ ° ÐAustin€had€been€served€with€process,€they€filed€their€own€complaint€for€declaratoryÏjudgment€in€chancery€court€against€State€Farm€alleging€that€State€Farm€was€obligatedÏto€provide€coverage€for€the€accident.€€The€chancery€court€case€was€dismissed€byÏconsent€because€State€Farmððs€action€in€circuit€court€had€been€filed€first.($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€X˜fXXXÔÔ€G&XX˜fÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X˜fXG&ÔÐ  ÐÌò òNovember€24,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôHõ ôXX˜fÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÷Ý ƒ Ö$ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€X„dXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€At€this€time,€there€was€no€court€order€that€granted€custody€to€one€parent€orÐ ° Ðthe€other. dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ7ÿ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÑ7€üÝXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€X„dXXXÔÝ  ÝÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€üÝXXdðXXdð7ÑñAññ5ñßr€ (<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` ttx$,°ð Õrßñ5ññAññAññAñà@Ì Ì ®àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@)®àAT€JACKSONˆÌà ` àà ¸ à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òSTATE€FARM€FIRE€AND€CASUALTYÐ ° ÐñAñßt€ (>.*jxfj` `€€@EL ` ttx$„² ( > tßñAñCOMPANY,€ó óÐ ²  ÐÌà ` àPlaintiff„Appellee,Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àShelby€Law€No.€85194ÌVs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àC.A.€No.€02A01„9802„CV„00044Ð ´   ÐÌò òJOHN€E.€WHITE,€LIZANNE€WHITE,Ð ´  ÐAnd€JOHN€AUSTIN€WHITE,€A€Minor,ÌÌà ` àó óDefendants„Appellants.Ð º  Ð____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@H H ®àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌà@| | ®àTHE€HONORABLE€GEORGE€H.€BROWN,€JR.,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌÌÌà@À À ®àRobert€L.€Moore,€John€H.€Dotson;€Thomason,€Hendrix,ˆÌà@``®àHarvey,€Johnson€&€Mitchell€of€MemphisˆÌà@rr(®àFor€AppelleeˆÌÌà@K K ®àR.€Sadler€Bailey,€C.€Philip€M.€Campbell;€Law€OfficesˆÌà@ ®àof€Bailey€&€Clarke€of€MemphisˆÌà@'®àFor€AppellantsˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@««$®àò òòòAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó óóóˆÐ º) %% ÐÌà@÷÷&®àOpinion€filed:€€ˆÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,Ð º2 .. Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌñ-ñÌñ-ñCONCUR:ÌÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óñ.ñÐ Ì;779 Їñ.ññ/ñ›ñ/ññ0ñÓÓñ0ññ/ñà ` àThis€case€concerns€œa›€coverage€dispute€under€a€homeowners€insurance€policy.€ÏAppellants,€John€E.€White€(Father),€Lisanne€White€(Mother),€and€John€AustinÏWhite,€a€minor,€€(Austin),€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€granting€summaryÏjudgment€to€Appellee,€State€Farm€Fire€and€Casualty€Company€(State€Farm),€motionÏfor€summary€judgment€and€denying€their€cross„motion€for€summary€judgment.Ìà ` àFather€and€Mother€were€married€in€November€of€1988.€€In€1991,€the€coupleÏmoved€into€their€marital€home€at€11260€Four€Winds€Drive€in€Eads,€Tennessee.€€AtÏsuch€time,€the€coupleððs€homeownerððs€insurance€was€changed€to€State€Farm.€€BothÏFather€and€Mother€were€the€named€insureds€under€the€homeownerððs€insurance€policyÏand€both€of€their€names€were€on€the€title€and€mortgage€to€the€house.€€Ìà ` àIn€March€1996,€the€couple€separated׃ ×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€at€which€time€Mother€moved€into€anÐ ° Ðapartment€in€Cordova,€Tennessee€where€she€resided€until€April€1997.€€FatherÏremained€at€the€house€in€Eads.Ìà ` àThe€couple€had€one€child€together,€Austin,€who€was€born€on€May€27,€1992.€ÏBy€informal€agreement€between€the€couple,€Austin€went€to€live€with€Mother€in€theÏCordova€apartment€at€the€time€of€the€separation.€€The€couple€further€agreed€thatÏFather€would€have€custody€of€Austin€every€other€weekend€and€every€Wednesday.€ÏIn€addition,€Austin€would€stay€with€Father€on€Saturdays€when€Mother€had€to€workÏand€any€other€time€that€was€beneficial€for€Austin.Ìà ` àOn€October€5,€1996,€Austin,€while€staying€with€Father,׃×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€was€seriously€injuredÐ °*&& Ðin€a€lawn€mower€accident€at€the€house€in€Eads.€€Father€was€cutting€grass€with€a€ridingÏlawn€mower€when€Austin€ran€up€to€the€lawn€mower€and€slipped€causing€his€foot€toÏgo€under€the€mower€severing€part€of€his€foot.€Ìà ` àAt€the€time€of€the€accident,€State€Farm€had€in€effect,€as€previously€mentioned,Ð °2.. Ða€homeownerððs€insurance€policy€covering€the€property€in€Eads.€€While€theÏhomeownerððs€policy€provided€liability€coverage,€the€policy€did€not€provide€coverageÏfor€ð ðò òbodily€injuryó ó€to€you€or€any€ò òinsured€ó ówithin€the€meaning€of€part€a.€or€b.€of€theÐ ° Ðdefinition€of€ò òinsuredó ó.ðð€€As€for€what€constituted€an€ð ðinsuredðð€under€the€policy,€theÐ ´  Ðpolicy€contained€the€following€definition:Ìñ/ññ1ñÓÓñ1ññ/ñà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àð ðò òinsuredó óðð€means€you€and,€if€residents€of€your€household:и ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àa.à  àyour€relatives;€andк ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àb.à  àany€other€person€under€the€age€of€21€who€is€in€the€Ð º  Ðà  àcare€of€a€person€described€above.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌœñ/ññ0ññ/ñÓÓñ/ññ0ñ›ñ/ññ/ññ2ñÓÓñ2ññ/ñà ` àSubsequently€after€the€accident,€a€claim€was€made€against€Father€on€behalf€ofÏAustin€for€the€injuries€and€damages€sustained.€€After€the€claim€was€made,€State€FarmÏfiled€a€complaint€for€declaratory€judgment€in€order€to€determine€its€rights,€duties€andÏobligations€under€the€policy.€€State€Farm€alleged€that€there€was€no€coverage€underÏthe€policy€because€of€the€aforementioned€exclusion€set€forth€in€the€policy.׃ ×Ý ƒ##ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð º  Ðà ` àState€Farm€moved€for€summary€judgment,€and€Mother€and€AustinÏsubsequently€filed€a€cross„motion€for€summary€judgment.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏState€Farmððs€motion€while€denying€Appellantsðð€cross„motion€for€summary€judgmentÏthus€prompting€this€appeal.€€The€only€issue€for€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erredÏin€granting€State€Farmððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€and€denying€their€cross„¼motion€for€summary€judgment.Ìà ` àA€motion€for€summary€judgment€should€be€granted€when€the€movantÏdemonstrates€that€there€are€no€genuine€issues€of€material€fact€and€that€the€movingÏparty€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04.€€The€partyÏmoving€for€summary€judgment€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€no€genuineÐ º1 -- Ðissue€of€material€fact€exists.€€ò òòòBain€v.€Wellsó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).€€OnÐ ° Ða€motion€for€summary€judgment,€the€court€must€take€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÏof€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmoving€party,€allow€all€reasonable€inferences€inÏfavor€of€that€party,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€€òòò òId.ó óóó€€In€ò òòòByrd€v.€Halló óóó,€847Ð ´  ÐS.W.2d€208€(Tenn.€1993),€our€Supreme€Court€stated:Ìœñ/ññ1ññ/ñÓÓñ/ññ1ñ›ñ/ññ/ññ3ñÓÓñ3ññ/ñà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àOnce€it€is€shown€by€the€moving€party€that€there€is€noÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact,€the€nonmoving€party€mustÏthen€demonstrate,€by€affidavits€or€discovery€materials,Ïthat€there€is€a€genuine,€material€fact€dispute€to€warrant€aÏtrial.€€In€this€regard,€Rule€56.05€provides€that€theÏnonmoving€party€cannot€simply€rely€upon€his€pleadingsÏbut€must€set€forth€òòspecific€factsóó€showing€that€there€is€aÐ ¸ Ðgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial.à8ȸ ¤¸ ¤àиÈLÈL Ðò òòòÌœñ/ññ2ññ/ñÓÓñ/ññ2ññ/ññ/ññ4ñÓÓñ4ññ/ñId.ó óóó›€at€211€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€in€original).Ð ¸ Ðà ` àSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€the€facts€and€the€legalÏconclusions€drawn€from€the€facts€reasonably€permit€only€one€conclusion.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.Ð ¼  ÐBottomsó óóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.€1995).€€Since€only€questions€of€law€are€involved,Ð À Ðthere€is€no€presumption€of€correctness€regarding€a€trial€court's€grant€of€summaryÏjudgment.€€ò òòòBainó óóó,€936€S.W.2d€at€622.€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€grantÐ Ä! Ðof€summary€judgment€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€on€the€record€before€this€Court.€€ò òòòWarren€v.€EstateÐ È# Ðof€Kirkó óóó,€954€S.W.2d€722,€723€(Tenn.€1997).Ð Ì%!! Ðà ` àState€Farm€asserts€that€Austin€is€an€insured€under€the€homeownerððs€policyÏcovering€the€house€in€Eads.€€Thus,€under€the€terms€of€the€policy€as€stated€above,Ïcoverage€is€not€afforded€to€Austinððs€injuries€and€State€Farm€does€not€owe€Father€aÏduty€to€defend€any€lawsuit€arising€out€of€the€accident€nor€to€provide€indemnity€toÏFather.€€State€Farm€contends€that€the€exclusion€in€the€homeownerððs€policy€precludesÏcoverage€for€Austinððs€injuries€for€two€reasons.€€First,€coverage€is€excluded€becauseÏAustin€was€a€resident€of€Fatherððs€household,€and€thus€was€an€insured€falling€withinÏthe€exclusion€from€coverage.€€Second,€Mother€was€a€named€insured€under€theÏhomeownerððs€policy,€and€Austin€was€a€resident€in€her€household€thus€precludingÏcoverage€under€the€terms€of€the€exclusion€in€the€policy.Ð Ð9 55 Ðà ` àAppellants€assert€that€Mother€and€Austin€ceased€to€be€residents€at€the€houseÏin€Eads€when€they€moved€out€of€the€home€in€March€of€1996.€€They€œargue€that›€theÏexclusion€from€coverage€does€not€apply€because€after€leaving€the€residence€bothÏMother€and€Austin€ceased€being€insureds€under€the€homeownerððs€policy.Ìà ` àAn€insurance€policy€must€be€construed€in€a€reasonable€and€logical€manner€toÏeffectuate€the€intention€of€the€parties.€€ò òòòSetters€v.€Permanent€Gen.€Assurance€Corp.óóó ó,Ð °  Ð937€S.W.2d€950,€953€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€€The€parties€to€an€insurance€policy€are€freeÏto€contract€as€they€see€fit€as€long€as€the€parties€remain€within€the€bounds€of€the€law,Ïincluding€public€policy.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€€The€courts€in€Tennessee€have€consistently€held€familyÐ ´ Ðmember€exclusions€in€liability€insurance€policies€to€be€valid€and€binding€and€notÏcontrary€to€public€policy.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Holt€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€486Ð ¸ ÐS.W.2d€734,€735€(Tenn.€1972);€òòò òOmaha€Property€&€Cas.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Johnsonó óóó,€866Ð ¼  ÐS.W.2d€539,€541€(Tenn.€App.€1993);€òòò ò€Beef€Nðð€Bird€of€Am.,€Inc.€v.€Continental€Cas.Ð À ÐCo.ó óóó,€803€S.W.2d€234,€237€(Tenn.€App.€1990);€òòò òDressler€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.Ð Ä ÐIns.€Co.ó óóó,€52€Tenn.€App.€514,€376€S.W.2d€700,€702€(1963).Ð È  Ðà ` àAmbiguous€provisions€in€an€insurance€policy€are€to€be€construed€against€theÏinsurer.€€òòò òSettersó óóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€954.€€However,€in€the€absence€of€any€ambiguity,€itÐ Ì$  Ðis€our€duty€ð ðððto€take€the€ordinary€meaning€of€the€words€used,€favoring€neither€partyÏin€their€construction.ðððð€òòò òId.ó óóó€(quoting€òòò òOmaha€Property€&€Cas.€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€866€S.W.2dÐ Ð( $$ Ðat€541).€€ð ðSo€long€as€an€exclusionary€clause€merely€limits€coverage€and€does€notÏtotally€emasculate€a€previously€stated€coverage,€this€Court€does€not€conceive€a€clearlyÏworded€exclusion€to€be€repugnant€to€a€previous€general€statement€of€coverage.ðð€€òòò òBeefÐ Ô.$** ÐNðð€Birdó óóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€237.Ð Ø0(,, Ðà ` àIt€is€a€well„settled€principle€of€law€that€a€person€may€have€more€than€oneÏresidence.€€ð ðOne€may€have€but€one€domicile€or€legal€residence,€but€he€may€have€twoÏor€more€residences.ðð€€ò òòòMcDonough€v.€State€Farm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€755€S.W.2dÐ Ü6,22 Ð57,€65€(Tenn.€App.€1988)€(citing€ò òòòDenny€v.€Sumner€Countyóóó ó,€134€Tenn.€468,€184Ð à8044 ÐS.W.€14€(1916).Ìà ` àThe€parties€have€not€cited€nor€has€our€research€revealed€a€œTennessee€case›Ïdealing€with€the€precise€question€concerning€the€resident€of€a€minor€child€œunder€theÏcircumstances€of€this€case,€€However,›€a€survey€of€case€law€from€other€jurisdictionsÏreveals€that€a€minor€child€of€divorced€parents€may€be€a€resident€of€both€households.€ÏIn€ò òòòMiller€v.€United€States€Fidelity€&€Guar.€Co.óóó ó,€127€N.J.€Super.€37,€316€A.2d€51Ð °  Ð(1974),€the€mother€had€legal€custody€of€the€minor€child€while€the€father€had€liberalÏvisitation€which€occurred€almost€every€weekend.€€Even€though€the€minor€child€wasÏa€resident€of€his€motherððs€household,€the€court€determined€that€it€was€not€precludedÏfrom€finding€that€the€child€was€also€a€resident€of€the€fatherððs€household.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€55.Ð ´ Ðà ` àIn€ò òòòMutual€Serv.€Cas.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Olsonóóó ó,€402€N.W.2d€621€(Minn.€App.€1987),Ð ¸ Ðthe€court€was€presented€with€a€situation€where€the€mother€was€initially€awardedÏcustody€of€the€partiesðð€child€but€custody€was€later€changed€to€the€father.€€WhileÏspending€the€weekend€with€his€mother,€the€child€was€involved€in€an€accident€at€herÏhouse.€€In€determining€whether€coverage€existed€under€a€homeownerððs€insuranceÏpolicy,€the€court€stated:€ð ðWe€see€no€reason€why€a€person€who€meets€the€criteria€forÏbeing€considered€a€resident€of€an€insuredððs€household€should€be€precluded€fromÏcoverage€solely€because€he€is€also€a€resident€of€another€household.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€624.€Ð ¼& "" Ðà ` àThis€principle€of€law€was€reiterated€in€òòò òPellegrino€v.€State€Farm€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€639Ð À($$ ÐN.Y.S.2d€668€(N.Y.€Sup.€Ct.€1996).€€In€ò òòòPellegrinoó óóó,€the€court€held€that€the€partiesððÐ Ä*&& Ðminor€son€was€covered€under€the€fatherððs€homeownerððs€insurance€policy€as€a€residentÏof€his€fatherððs€household€even€though€the€sonððs€principal€residence€was€with€hisÏmother€who€had€custody.€€The€court€noted€that€the€sonððs€principal€residence€with€hisÏmother€stemmed€from€the€divorce€of€his€parents€and€the€impossibility€of€living€withÏboth€parents€full€time,€rather€than€from€any€intent€on€the€sonððs€part€to€abandon€hisÏresidence€with€his€father.€€The€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà  àInasmuch€as€the€law€recognizes€the€ability€of€anÏindividual€to€retain€residency€at€more€than€one€locationÐ È955 Ðfor€purposes€of€insurance€coverage,€it€would€be€whollyÏinappropriate€to€impute€any€intention€by€[the€son]€toÏabandon€the€home€of€his€father,€the€non„custodial€parent,Ïfollowing€a€divorce€where€[the€son]€and€his€fatherÏmanaged€to€sustain€precisely€the€type€of€regular€andÏmeaningful€contact€that€is€the€hope€and€goal€of€everyÏcourt€which€issues€a€divorce€decree€which€includesÏprovision€for€visitation.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌò òòòÓÓId.óóó ó€at€670€(citation€omitted).Ð °  Ðà ` àIn€òòò òHartford€Cas.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Phillipsó óóó,€575€S.W.2d€62€(Tex.€Civ.€App.€1978),€Ð ´  Ðthe€court€noted€that€ð ða€person,€particularly€a€child,€can€have€more€than€oneÏððresidenceðððð€and€that€ð ð[t]his€seems€particularly€true€of€a€minor€child€of€divorced€orÏestranged€parents.ðð€€òòò òId.€ó óóóat€63.€€Finding€that€the€minor€child€was€a€resident€of€hisÐ ¸ Ðfatherððs€household,€the€court€concluded€that€such€a€finding€would€not€necessarilyÏprevent€and€foreclose€a€finding€that€he€was€also€a€resident€of€his€motherððs€household.€Ïò òòòId.óóó ó€at€64.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àAlong€these€same€lines€is€ò òòòAetna€Cas.€&€Sur.€Co.€v.€Williamsóóó ó,€623€So.2d€1005Ð À Ð(Miss.€1993).€€In€ò òòòWilliamsóóó ó,€the€court€stated€that€a€person€may€simultaneously€haveÐ Ä Ðmultiple€residences,€that€a€dwelling€place€need€not€be€fixed€or€permanent€to€qualifyÏas€a€residence,€and€that€a€temporary€and€transient€habitation€can€qualify€as€such.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÐ È# Ðat€1010.€€Concluding€that€the€minor€child€was€a€resident€of€both€his€fatherððsÏhousehold€and€his€motherððs€household,€the€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àà  àA€non„custodial€parent€is€just€as€much€a€ð ðparentððÏas€a€custodial€parent€and€the€child€is€still€a€member€of€theÏnon„custodial€parentððs€family.€€Consequently,€the€child€isÏstill€a€ð ðresidentðð€in€the€household€of€the€non„custodialÏparent.€€We€hold,€therefore,€that€a€child€is€a€resident€ofÏboth€parentsðð€households€until€he€or€she€reaches€the€ageÏof€majority€or€becomes€œfully›€emancipated.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌÓÓò òòòId.óóó ó€at€1011.Ð Ì1-- Ðà ` àFurthermore,€in€ò òòòAlava€v.€Allstate€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€497€So.2d€1286€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.Ð Ð3 // ÐApp.€1986),€a€minor€child€who€spent€weekdays€with€his€mother€and€weekends€withÏhis€father€was€held€to€be€a€resident€of€both€of€his€divorced€parentsðð€households.€€TheÏcourt€stated€that€ð ð[d]espite€their€divorce,€[the€divorced€parents]€clearly€intended€thatÐ Ô9$55 Ð[the€minor€child]€maintain€relationships€with€both€parentsðð€which€was€manifestedÐ Ô9$55 Ðby€the€regularity€with€which€the€child€visited€his€father.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€1288.€€The€courtÐ ° Ðfound€the€absence€of€a€formal€custody€order€to€be€immaterial€to€determining€theÏresidency€status€of€the€minor€child.€€ò òòòId.Ð ´ Ðó óóóà ` àFinally,€this€principle€of€law€was€carried€forward€in€òòò òArcher€v.€Nationwide€Ins.Ð ¸  ÐCo.ó óóó,€No.€93AP„620,€1993€WL€318823€(Ohio€App.€Aug.€19,€1993).€€In€òòò òArcheró óóó,€theÐ ¼  Ðfather€was€originally€granted€visitation€with€his€minor€children€every€other€weekendÏat€his€residence.€€The€decree€was€revised€granting€the€father€visitation€with€theÏchildren€for€three€weeks€per€year€at€his€residence€along€with€two€weeks€each€summerÏand€one€week€during€Christmas.€€When€the€children€stayed€at€their€fatherððsÏresidence,€they€would€sleep€in€separate€bedrooms€which€were€converted€to€other€usesÏwhen€the€children€were€not€present.€€The€children€also€kept€certain€items€at€theirÏfatherððs€house€throughout€the€year.€€In€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€the€court,Ïfinding€that€the€children€had€regular€and€consistent€residential€contacts€with€theirÏfather,€concluded€that€the€children€were€residents€of€both€parentsðð€households.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÐ À Ðat€*6.Ìà ` à€In€ò òòòAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€Summersóóó ó,€No.€01„A„01„9407„CV00361,€1994€WLÐ Ä" Ð719839€(Tenn.€App.€M.S.€Dec.€30,€1994),€Tennessee€joined€the€several€otherÏjurisdictions€which€have€held€that€a€minor€child€of€divorced€parents€may€reside€withÏboth€of€them.€€In€ò òòòSummersóóó ó,€a€minor€child,€whose€parents€were€divorced,€was€involvedÐ È($$ Ðin€an€automobile€accident€along€with€his€stepmother€in€which€both€received€fatalÏinjuries.€€The€childððs€mother€filed€suit.€€Allstate€had€issued€an€automobile€insuranceÏpolicy,€which€was€in€force€when€the€accident€occurred,€to€the€childððs€father€andÏstepmother.€€The€policy€contained€the€following€exclusion:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àThe€liability€insurance€of€this€policy€does€not€apply€toÏbodily€injuries€or€property€damage€suffered€by€the€personÏnamed€on€the€declarations€page,€or€to€anyone€who€is€aÏmember€of€the€family€of€the€person€named€on€theÏdeclarations€page€and€who€lives€with€that€person.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ ÐÌÓÓà ` àAllstate€asserted€that€the€exclusion€applied€alleging€that€the€minor€child€wasÐ Ì844 Ða€member€of€his€fatherððs€family€and€lived€with€him.€€The€childððs€mother€contendedÏthat€the€child€was€a€resident€of€her€household€in€that€she€had€liberal€visitation€withÏthe€child,€that€the€child€would€spend€every€weekend€and€the€entire€summer€with€her,Ïand€that€the€child€was€living€with€her€at€the€time€of€the€accident.€€Ìà ` àAfter€analyzing€case€law€from€other€jurisdictions€finding€a€minor€child€aÏresident€of€both€households,€the€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àà8¸ ` ü!` ü!àWe€think€it€is€clear€from€this€record€that€not€only€didÏ[the€motherððs]€ex„husband€have€legal€custody€of€their€son,Ïbut€the€son€also€lived€at€least€nine€months€of€the€yearÏwith€his€father.€€In€her€affidavit€[the€mother]€states€thatÏher€son€ð ðalways€spent€the€entire€summer€with€me.ðð€€TheÏfact€that€[the€minor€child]€may€have€been€a€resident€ofÏher€household€for€six€or€seven€weeks€before€his€death€doesÏnot€in€any€way€result€in€the€conclusion€that€her€son€wasÏnot€also€a€resident€of€his€fatherððs€household.Ð ¸ ¤¸ ¤ Ðò òÌòòÓÓId.óóó ó€at€*3.€€In€denying€coverage€for€the€minor€child€under€the€policy,€the€CourtÐ ² Ðconcluded€by€stating€that€ð ð[t]he€mere€fact€that€[the€minor€child]€resided€with€hisÏmother€for€several€weeks€each€summer€does€not€mean€that€he€was€not€a€member€ofÏhis€fatherððs€household€and€did€not€reside€with€his€father€as€well.ðð€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€*4.Ð ¶  Ðà ` àThe€Court€in€ò òòòSummers€óóó órelied€upon€several€of€the€aforementioned€cases€inÐ º"  Ðreaching€its€conclusion.€€One€case€relied€upon€by€the€òòò òSummersó óóó€Court€was€ò òòòAlava€v.Ð ¾$  ÐAllstate€Ins.€Co.ó óóó€€Appellants€attempt€to€distinguish€òòò òAlava,ó óóó€and€ostensibly€òòò òSummersó óóó,Ð Â&"" Ðby€relying€on€òòò òProgressive€Ins.€Co.€v.€Estate€of€Wesleyó óóó,€702€So.2d€513€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.Ð Æ($$ ÐApp.€1997).€€The€ò òòòProgressiveóóó ó€Court€distinguished€ò òòòAlavaó óóó€on€grounds€that€the€ò òòòAlavaó óóóÐ Ê*&& ÐCourt€was€addressing€a€grant€in€coverage,€not€an€exclusion€from€coverage.€€The€courtÏstated€that€the€ò òòòAlavaóóó ó€Court€reached€its€conclusion€finding€dual€resident€status€byÐ Î.** Ðinterpreting€the€policy€language€broadly€in€favor€of€coverage.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€515.€€TheÐ Ò0",, Ðò òòòProgressiveóóó ó€Court€stated€that€when€dealing€with€a€limitation€on€coverage,€as€wasÐ Ö2&.. Ðbefore€them,€the€policy€is€to€be€interpreted€narrowly.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÐ Ú4*00 Ðà ` àWe€do€not€find€Appellants€assertions€on€this€point€to€be€persuasive.€€WhileÏthe€òòò òProgressive€ó óóóCourt€limited€òòò òAlavaóóó ó€to€situations€involving€grants€of€coverage,€theÐ Þ8.44 Ðò òòòSummersó óóó€Court€obviously€did€not€find€this€distinction€to€be€relevant€to€its€decisionÐ ° Ðin€that€the€òòò òSummersó óóó€Court€used€the€rationale€in€ò òòòAlavaóóó ó€and€other€cases€to€denyÐ ´ Ðcoverage€based€on€an€exclusion€within€the€policy.€€Furthermore,€the€ò òòòProgressive€óóó óCourtÐ ¸ Ðwas€dealing€with€ambiguous€terms€within€the€policy€in€determining€the€outcome€ofÏthe€issue€before€them.€€In€the€case€sub€judice,€we€are€not€faced€with€any€ambiguousÏlanguage€within€the€insurance€policy€to€warrant€any€interpretation€of€the€policyÏbeyond€its€plain€terms.Ìà ` àAppellants€also€rely€heavily€upon€several€cases€for€their€proposition€that€AustinÏceased€to€be€a€resident€of€Fatherððs€household€when€he€and€Mother€moved€from€theÏresidence.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.,€Prudential€Property€&€Cas.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Rinehartó óóó,€704€F.€Supp.Ð ¼  Ð960€(E.D.€Mo.€1989);òòò ò€Allstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€Fultonó óóó,€345€So.2d€854€(Fla.€App.€1977);Ð À Ðò òòòBorne€v.€Jersey€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€98€So.2d€906€(La.€App.€1957);€òòò òAllstate€Ins.€Co.€v.€Barnesó óóó,Ð Ä Ð896€S.W.2d€565€(Tenn.€App.€1995);€ò òòòMcDonough€v.€State€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€755Ð È ÐS.W.2d€57€(Tenn.€App.€1988);€ò òòòFarm€Mut.€Auto.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Thomasóóó ó,€699€S.W.2dÐ Ì Ð156€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€€Each€of€these€cases€involved€adults€as€distinguished€fromÏminor€children.€€This€Court€does€not€think€these€cases€involving€adults€to€beÏnecessarily€determinative€in€the€present€case.Ìà ` àWith€the€foregoing,€the€conclusion€follows€that€Austin€was€a€resident€of€ÏMotherððs€household€and€a€resident€of€Fatherððs€household.€€Austin€is€a€very€youngÏchild.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€there€was€no€divorce€decree€and€there€was€noÏcourt€ordered€custody.€€The€parties€informally€agreed€on€Austinððs€custody€schedule.€ÏAustin€resided€primarily€with€Mother€because€the€parents€felt€that€was€best€forÏAustin€since€he€is€of€such€a€young€age.€€Father€had€custody€of€Austin€every€otherÏweekend€and€every€Wednesday,€on€Saturdays€when€Mother€had€to€work,€and€anyÏother€time€that€was€beneficial€for€Austin.€€From€the€record,€it€is€clear€that€Austin€andÏFather€had€a€very€close€and€intimate€relationship€with€each€other,€and€it€was€theÏintent€of€the€parties€that€the€two€maintain€this€relationship.€€Ð Ð8 44 Ðà ` àFurthermore,€Father€maintained€Austinððs€bedroom€at€the€Eads€residence,€andÏAustin€kept€certain€items,€such€as€toys€and€clothes,€at€the€Eads€residence€throughoutÏthe€year.€€The€parties€admit€that€the€house€in€Eads€was€kept€to€give€Austin€a€senseÏof€belonging.€€In€his€deposition,€when€asked€about€the€items€left€at€the€EadsÏresidence,€Father€stated€that€such€was€left€to€keep€Austin€ð ðfrom€feeling€totallyÏrelocated.ðð€€It€appears€from€the€record€that€a€substantially€integrated€familyÏrelationship€existed€between€Austin€and€Mother€and€between€Austin€and€FatherÏduring€the€time€that€he€lived€with€each€one.€€Mother€and€Father€clearly€intendedÏAustin€to€maintain€a€close€relationship€with€each€of€them€despite€the€separation.€ÏThus,€it€is€obvious€from€the€record€taken€as€a€whole€that€Austin€was€a€resident€ofÏboth€households.€€As€such,€the€exclusion€in€the€homeownerððs€policy€is€applicable€andÏcoverage€is€excluded€for€the€injuries€Austin€sustained€as€a€result€of€the€lawn€mowerÏaccident.Ìà ` àState€Farm€also€contends€that€Austin€is€excluded€from€coverage€because€heÏresides€with€his€mother,€a€named€insured€in€the€policy,€and€is€thus€an€insured.€ÏAlthough€there€are€apparently€no€Tennessee€cases€on€point,€òòò òMurphy€v.€LouisianaÐ °" ÐFarm€Bureau€Mut.€Ins.€Co.óóó ó,€569€So.2d€637€(La.€App.€1990)€is€quite€persuasive.€€InÐ ´$  Ðò òòòMurphy,€óóó óa€mother€of€a€minor€child€brought€suit€for€personal€injuries€against€theÐ ¸&"" Ðminorððs€father€and€his€homeownerððs€insurer.€€The€insurer€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€alleging€that€the€policy€excluded€coverage.€€At€the€time€of€the€inception€ofÏthe€homeownerððs€policy,€the€parents€of€the€child€resided€together€at€the€maritalÏhome.€€At€the€time€of€the€accident,€the€parents€were€judicially€separated€and€theÏminor€child€resided€with€his€mother€at€a€different€residence€while€the€father€remainedÏat€the€former€marital€residence.€€Furthermore,€at€the€time€of€the€accident,€both€theÏmotherððs€and€the€fatherððs€name€were€still€on€the€homeownerððs€insurance€policyÏcovering€the€marital€home.€€The€policy€contained€a€section€addressing€numerousÏexclusions€from€coverage€within€the€policy€and€also€contained€a€definition€sectionÐ ¼8 44 Ðwith€almost€identical€language€defining€an€ð ðinsuredðð€under€the€policy€as€we€have€inÏthe€case€before€us.Ìà ` àThe€mother€contended€that€the€minor€child€was€not€an€insured€under€theÏpolicy€because€he€resided€with€her€and€not€with€his€father€at€the€insured€premises.€ÏThe€court€stated€that€unambiguous€and€clear€terms€of€an€insurance€policy,€includingÏexclusions,€should€be€enforced.€€ò òòòId.óóó ó€at€639.€€The€court€then€held€that€since€theÐ °  Ðmother€is€a€named€insured€with€whom€the€child€resided,€the€child€is€an€insuredÏwithin€the€terms€of€the€policy€provisions€triggering€the€exclusions€section.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÐ ´ Ðà ` àIn€the€case€sub€judice,€Mother€is€a€named€insured€on€the€homeownerððsÏinsurance€policy€covering€the€marital€residence.€€Austin€resides€with€her€at€her€newÏresidence€acquired€after€the€separation.€€Under€the€plain€terms€of€the€policy,€AustinÏis€an€insured€within€the€meaning€of€the€policy€provisions€thus€excluding€him€fromÏcoverage€under€the€homeownerððs€insurance€policy.Ìà ` àAccordingly,€the€order€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€and€the€case€is€remandedÏfor€such€further€proceedings€as€necessary.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€against€theÏœññaññññAññppellants.›€€€€€ÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ð ¸%!! Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÐ º& "" ÐÌò òCONCUR:Ð ¼( $$ ÐÌÌœññó óò òññ____________________________________›ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÐ Ä,(( ÐÌ____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óœÔ†ÿÿÔÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôñ/ñ