with Tracy. Therefore, Tracy was not an insured under his parents’ policy. Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is AFFIRMED. HUFF and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 1 . We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. 2 . See, e.g., Buddin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 250 S.C. 332, 340, 157 S.E.2d 633, 637 (1967) (asserting nephew who actively participated in uncle's household activities and who did not intend to live elsewhere was a resident relative of uncle); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Horne, 356 S.C. 52, 68, 586 S.E.2d 865, 874 (Ct.App.2003), cert. denied August 4, 2004 (finding child of divorced parents was not a resident relative of her non-custodial parent's household); Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Langford, 330 S.C. 578, 584, 500 S.E.2d 496, 499 (Ct.App.1998)
holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that tolling does not apply to additional defendants who were not named in the class action holding that the district court erred in dismissing the injured party from the insureds declaratory relief action based on a default judgment entered against the insured and the insureds tortfeasor son holding that the named insured was using an automobile when changing its tire holding grandchild and greatgrandchild who occasionally visited named insured were not insureds