Writ application denied.
Defendant insurer, Farm Bureau, asserts no coverage herein based on its “resident relative” exclusion and its “intentional act” exclusion, and was successful in the lower courts’ granting of its motion for summary judgment. Motions for summary judgment should not be granted when there are questions of material fact present. In this case, in order to determine if the insured is a resident relative of the household or has committed an intentional act, the trial court is not allowed to weigh evidence, judge credibility, or address intent. In my view, I find that there are questions of material fact as to the applicability of two exclusions asserted by defendant and that the trial court weighed evidence and judged credibility, which is prohibited in deciding whether a summary judgment should be granted.
Thus, I would reverse the lower courts grant of defendants motion for summary judgment and allow the case to go to trial. In doing so, there would be a full and complete record established, along with the availability of an adequate remedy on appeal.
Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Justice Genovese.