ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on "Plaintiff Shujun Tong's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re: Underinsured Motorist Coverage." Dkt. # 10. Plaintiff seeks a summary determination that she is entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under a State Farm insurance policy issued to Yang Lin because she was a "Resident Relative" at the time of the accident and is therefore entitled to coverage under the policy. Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact that would preclude the entry of judgment as a matter of law. The party seeking summary dismissal of the case "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion" (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)) and "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" that show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, it is entitled to summary judgment if the non-moving party fails to designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. The Court will "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party . . . and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Krechman v. County of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2013). Although the Court must reserve for the jury genuine issues regarding credibility, the weight of the evidence, and legitimate inferences, the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position will be insufficient" to avoid judgment. City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Factual disputes whose resolution would not affect the outcome of the suit are irrelevant to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment. S. Cal. Darts Ass'n v. Zaffina, 762 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 2014). In other words, summary judgment should be granted where the nonmoving party fails to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor. FreecycleSunnyvale v. Freecycle Network, 626 F.3d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 2010).

In her moving papers, plaintiff failed to satisfy her initial burden of demonstrating that there are no disputed issues of material fact. For purposes of underinsured motorist coverage, the term "insured" includes "resident relatives," who are defined as "a person . . . who resides primarily with the first person shown as a named insured on the Declarations Page and who is . .. related to that named insured . . . by blood." Dkt. # 10-2 at 11. Plaintiff offers no evidence regarding her relationship to the insured or her residence1 other than a police report. The report is not, however, admissible to prove the truth of the out-of-court statements recorded therein. Even if it were considered as evidence that plaintiff and the insured are related and/or that plaintiff used the insured's address on the date of the accident, the evidence would not give rise to an inference that the Redmond address was plaintiff's primary residence.2 Plaintiff provided no declarations from her or the insured, no evidence regarding the length of plaintiff's stay in the United States, no evidence regarding the terms of her admission into the country, and no historical or prospective information as evidence of plaintiff's past or future travel activities and residency plans. In short, plaintiff provided no information from which the Court could reasonably conclude, as a matter of law, that plaintiff "resides primarily with" the named insured even if the police report were admissible evidence on that issue.3

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.