In Pour v. Liberty Mutual Pers. Ins. Co., No. 24-1824 (8th Cir. 2025, December 1, 2025), Roland Pour Sr. purchased and insured a home in Minnesota, where his children Kmontee and Roland Jr. lived. Pour Sr. moved to Georgia in 2019, updating all personal records to reflect his new residence but did not sell the Minnesota home or notify the insurer of his change in residence. He maintained some belongings in the Minnesota home and visited occasionally, while his children continued to live there and paid for utilities. In September 2021, a fire damaged the home and personal property. Pour Sr., living in Georgia at the time, filed a claim under the homeowners insurance policy for damages to the house, his own property stored there, and his children’s property and living expenses.
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed cross motions for summary judgment. Applying Minnesota law, the court granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual, holding that the policy did not cover the home or attached structures because Pour Sr. did not “reside” at the house at the time of the fire. The court also held that Kmontee and Roland’s property was not covered because, although they lived in the home, they were not “residents of Pour Sr.’s household” as defined by the policy and Minnesota law. Pour Sr.’s claim for his own property was settled and not at issue.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that, under the unambiguous terms of the policy and Minnesota law, Pour Sr. did not reside at the Minnesota home during the relevant period, and his children were not insureds under the policy because they did not reside in his household. The court found no conflict with Minnesota’s Standard Fire Insurance Policy and rejected arguments regarding ambiguity or illusory coverage.