appear, despite the majority’s disclaimer, that a wife living with a husband and a father living with a son would all be equally covered by the terms of the policy as construed under the Pennsylvania cases I have cited. Hence, it was the law of Pennsylvania as announced in those cases that the district court should have charged in instructing the jury to apply the law to the facts which it found. III. A further basis upon which Andrew Klinghoffer may be found by a reasonable jury to have been living with his father has unfortunately also been overlooked by the majority. The majority concedes that it might find Andrew Klinghoffer to be “living with” his parents if he were a member of the military, as was the case in United Services Auto Ass’n v. Evangelista, 698 F.Supp. 85 (E.D.Pa.1988) (<HOLDING>). The majority also concedes that a similar
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 in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for holding that insureds failure to list his brother as a member of the household was a material misrepresentation that provided the insurance company with grounds to rescind the policy holding a serviceman to be a member of his parents household for purposes of insurance coverage even while he was stationed elsewhere holding that coverage was excluded where insured failed to notify insurance company of all operators and household members as required