The respondents, Joseph Stevens and Jarred Martineau, appeal an order of the superior court, following a bench trial, ruling in favor of the petitioner, Vermont Mutual Insurance Company, on its request for a declaratory judgment that Stevens is not an "insured" under the terms of a homeowners policy. Relying upon Belanger v. MMG Ins. Co., 153 N.H. 584, 587 (2006), the trial court concluded that Stevens was not a "resident of [his parents'] household" and, thus, was not an "insured" within the meaning of the policy because he did not physically dwell at his parents' home at the time of the incident giving rise to the coverage dispute. The respondents argue that the trial court erred by not considering all of the relevant circumstances or the intent of Stevens, and by focusing instead on the amount of time he resided away from his parents' home, a factor they contend the trial court deemed to be "dispositive." We affirm.
We disagree with the respondents that the trial court deemed the amount of time that Stevens spent away from his parents' home to be a "dispositive" factor. See In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H. 698, 702 (2008) (interpretation of trial court order is a question of law, which we review de novo). As the appealing parties, the respondents have the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. ___, ___ (decided September 12, 2014). Based upon our review of the trial court's well-reasoned order, the respondents' challenges to it, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the respondents have not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
CONBOY, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., ...