Wall Rose Mutual Insurance v. Manross

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the court did not abuse its discretion where the record adequately supports the trial court’s reasons and factual basis
• holding that determination of “whether an individual ‘physically lives’ in a particular place so as to ‘reside’ there”, requires “examin[ing] the facts of the case and com[ing] to a common-sense decision”
• when term not defined in policy, court applies common law definition historically used by courts of that jurisdiction to arrive at common-sense decision
• deposition testimony of family members and friends supported determination that grandson was not resident of insured’s home, where he was a drifter whose visits did not occur with any regularity, but were random at best
• deposition testimony of family members and friends supported determination that grandson was not resident of insured’s home, where he was a drifter - 10 - J-A30014-19 whose visits did not occur with any regularity, but were random at best

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).