Bates, 156 N.H. at 722. The facts found by the trial court are similar to those in Holyoke Mutual Insurance Co. v. Carr, 130 N.H. 698 (1988). In that case, we upheld the denial of uninsured motorist coverage for an individual on the ground that he was not a “resident” of the insured’s household. Id. at 698. The person for whom coverage was sought was over eighteen years of age, had moved into an apartment in Vermont, and obtained employment there. Id. at 699. Under these circumstances, we held that the individual was not a resident of his father’s home for purposes of insurance coverage, even though he used his father’s address on his driver’s license, often visited his father’s home, and still received mail there. Id. at 700; see also Connolly v. Galvin, 120 N.H. 219, 220-21 (1980) (<HOLDING>). In Limoges, the plaintiff seeking coverage
holding that debt orhusband could exempt his interest in home even though he lived elsewhere and even though the home was a residence only for his children and codebtor wife from whom he was separated holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that plaintiffs allegations  that he was improperly paid for appearances at arbitration proceedings that he received highly negative performance evaluations that he was harassed by being required to perform tasks outside his job description that he received shorter notice of his termination than other employees and that he was terminated in retaliation for his eeoc complaint  each state a claim upon which relief can be granted under  1981