Homeowner’s policy coverage dispute; Requirement that the insureds “reside” on the property; Heniser v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co.; McGrath v. Allstate Ins. Co.; Whether the policy was ambiguous; Royal Prop. Group, LLC v. Prime Ins. Syndicate, Inc.; “Occupy”; Negligence; Case v. Consumers Power Co.; An insurance agent’s duty; Zaremba Equip., Inc. v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co.; Mate v. Wolverine Mut. Ins. Co.; Genesee Food Servs., Inc. v. Meadowbrook, Inc.; “Special relationship”; Harts v. Farmers Ins. Exch.; Pressey Enters., Inc. v. Barnett-France Ins. Agency; Expert testimony on a question of law; Lenawee Cnty. v. Wagley

Concluding that McGrath controlled here, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-insurer (Encompass) in this dispute over coverage under a homeowner’s policy because plaintiffs-insureds did not “reside” on the property at the time of the fire. The court also affirmed summary disposition for defendant-insurance agency (Suport) on their negligence claim against it. Plaintiffs argued that the Stonegate property “remained their residence while they were temporarily in Egypt.” They contended that the policy did not require them to “physically live” there at the time of the fire, and that they continued to reside there because they left personal property there “and intended to return at some point in the future. Although the arrangement of the relevant policy provisions in the policy at issue” differed slightly from the policy in McGrath, both were “fundamentally the same in that both ultimately required the insureds to reside on the subject property in order for coverage to apply.” Whatever plaintiffs’ intent for the future, the evidence was undisputed that they had not lived on the premises for seven months before the fire, “choosing instead to stay in Egypt or at their children’s residences when in Michigan.” These factual circumstances were like those in McGrath and Heniser. The court also rejected their arguments that the policy was ambiguous about the residency requirement. As to the agency, the court concluded that there was no evidence plaintiffs “informed Suport of the facts that were material to the reasons that their homeowner’s insurance policy did not cover the loss in this case, i.e., that they were going to be in Egypt and away from the Stonegate property for at least six months—which was half of the policy period—while” it was leased to a tenant. Without knowing “these facts, Suport could not have advised plaintiffs on their homeowner’s insurance needs under such circumstances even if they had a duty to do so since plaintiffs’ extended absence from the Stonegate property while leasing it to a tenant is significantly different from their previous pattern—of which Suport was undisputedly aware—where they traveled to Egypt once or twice a year for shorter periods of time.”