SCHILL v.

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY

2014-Ohio-4527

FACTS:
Dr. Miles Cobrun was riding his bicycle in Newburn Township Ohio when he was struck by
an SUV driven by Robert Schill (Robert). Cobrun died later that day from his injuries.
Cobrun’s wife, Peggy Spaeth, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Robert and his insurer.
Robert’s vehicle was insured with a liability coverage limit of $500,000. Spaeth settled
with his insurer and Robert sought additional coverage under the personal umbrella
liability of his parents (James and Jean) which was issued by Cincinnati Insurance Company
(CIC). Under the terms of the policy, an insured includes a resident relative for any
occurrence involving an automobile they own, lease, rent or use. By definition, a resident
relative is a person related to the insured by blood, marriage or adoption that is the
resident of your household and whose legal residence of domicile is the same as yours.

Spaeth contends that Robert was a definitional insured under the policy as a “resident
relative” who shares the same domicile with James. She further argued that James could be
“domiciled” in Florida for some purposes and “domiciled” in Ohio “for insurance coverage
purposes.” On the other hand, CIC submits James’ admission that he has considered his
home to be the house in Florida since 1993 and the steps he has taken to give the
impression his home is in Florida, should be enough to prove his domicile is in Florida, not
Ohio. The trial court found that Robert did not meet the definition of “resident relative”
since he did not have the same domicile as either of his parents, the names insured, which
was required under the CIC policy.

ISSUE:
Did Schill share the same “legal residence of domicile” with his parents at the time of the
accident?

HELD:
NO. In order to change one’s domicile, there must be actual abandonment of the first
domicile, intention not to return to the first domicile, and acquisition of a new domicile in
another place with the intention of making the new domicile a permanent home. The acts
of the person must correspond with the purpose of changing one’s domicile. Because James
sold his home, moved all of his belonging from Ohio to Florida, let his Ohio driver’s license
expire, found new doctors, changed his voter registration, manages his finances through
Florida bank accounts, and is careful not to stay in Ohio long enough to trigger tax
consequences, his intent to be domiciled in Florida is clear.
Further, the nature of James’ contract with Ohio is transient – he works, and then he leaves.
He has stated that he intends to return to Ohio to work for as long as he is physically able.
This means that he will stop coming to Ohio when he is physically unable to work. At that
point, he will remain in Florida. Undoubtedly, he works in Ohio. But Florida is his domicile.
Hence, Robert did not share the same “legal residence of domicile” with his parents and he
cannot be considered as an insured resident relative under the umbrella policy.