Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 350204, 350207; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Kelly, and Cameron; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial court’s denial of defendant Home-Owners Insurance Company’s motion for summary disposition, as well as its order granting summary disposition to defendant Auto Club Insurance Association (ACIA). The Court of Appeals held that the trial correctly determined (1) that admissions made by the plaintiff, Harold Palka regarding his future intent to move away from the State of Michigan did not constitute evidence that Palka was not domiciled with his mother, Home-Owners’ insured, at the time of the subject motocross-versus-motor vehicle crash, (2) that Palka was, in fact, domiciled with his mother at the time of the crash, and (3) that the two-wheeled motocross bike Palka was operating at the time of the crash was an off-road vehicle (ORV covered under the no-fault act, as opposed to a motorcycle.
Palka was injured when he collided with a motor vehicle, driven by ACIA’s insured, Geraldine Przeslawski, while operating his Honda two-wheeled motocross bike. At the time of the crash, Palka was living with his mother, Alica Palka, who maintained a policy of insurance through Home-Owners. In Palka’s subsequent first-party action to recover no-fault PIP benefits, payment of which Home-Owners denied, Home-Owners moved for summary disposition, arguing that ACIA was the highest priority insurer because Palka was not domiciled with Alice at the time of the collision, and because the motocross bike he was operating at the time of the crash was a motorcycle, not an ORV. Ultimately, the trial court denied Home-Owners’ motion for summary disposition, instead granting summary disposition in ACIA’s favor.
On appeal, Home-Owners first argued that admissions by Palka during the course of discovery, in which Palka stated his intention to move to California at some point in the future, proved conclusively that Palka was not domiciled with Alice at the time of the crash. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that Palka’s statement regarding his future intention to leave Michigan in no way proved that he was not domiciled with Alice at the time of the crash.
HOI argues that the trial court erred by failing to give conclusive effect to Palka’s response to its request for admission that he was domiciled in California, not Michigan. To be conclusive on the domicile issue, the admissions would have to have demonstrated that Palka had terminated his domicile in Michigan and established a domicile in California. Indeed, ACIA admitted that Palka “has testified at various times that, at some unspecified time in the future[,] . . . he intended to move to California to live with his wife.” Comparatively, in its response to the requests for admission, ACIA stated that at the time of the accident, Palka was domiciled with Alice in Michigan.
We agree with the trial court, and conclude that in no way did ACIA’s admissions conclusively establish that Palka was domiciled in California at the time of the accident. At most, they showed that ACIA was acknowledging Palka’s intent to move to California in the future. HOI contends that Palka’s admissions definitively resolved the issue of domicile. And HOI emphasizes Palka’s admission that ACIA was “the insurer in the highest priority to pay” Palka’s no-fault benefits. While it is true that admissions can encompass “the application of law to fact,” MCR 2.312(A), in Employers Mut Cas Co v Petroleum Equip, Inc, 190 Mich App 57, 67; 475 NW2d 418 (1991), this Court stated that “under MCR 2.312(B)(1) it is only against the party to whom a request for admission has been served that a matter may be deemed admitted.” Accordingly, Palka’s answers are not attributable to ACIA. ACIA denied as untrue the assertion that ACIA was the highest-priority insurer for paying Palka’s no-fault benefits and also denied that Palka was domiciled in California at the time of the accident.
Home-Owners next argued that the trial court erred in determining that Palka was domiciled with Alice at the time of the crash, and again, the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court noted that, at the time of the crash, it was undisputed that Palka was living with Alice, that he paid rent to Alice, had his own room at Alice’s home, and received mail at Alice’s home. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that he had terminated his domicile in Michigan and actually established a domicile in California.
HOI argues that Palka’s true domicile was California. However, at the time of the accident, it is undisputed that Palka was living with Alice and had been for months: Palka paid rent, had a room in the home, and was receiving mail there. Both Palka and Alice agreed that Palka would be staying at Alice’s home at least until the end of the lease. Although Palka had intended to move to California to be with his wife before the accident, he admitted that he had set no specific date for the move, and actually needed to get his finances together before moving. He said that his plan was to move to California “eventually.” Further, Palka admitted that although he was “going to move to California,” he had not actually been a resident of California and had never lived with his wife. He did not have a California driver’s license, and had not purchased any tickets to travel to California as of the date of the accident. Palka stated that between the marriage and the accident, he had gone to California approximately three times, for short trips of a week or so. He testified that just before the accident, he had some possessions, such as clothes and “shaving stuff,” in California, and had things like “dish sets” and “DVDs” in Michigan.
Home-Owners lastly argued that the motocross bike Palka was operating at the time of the crash was a motorcycle, not an ORV, and that Home-Owners was thus not the highest priority insurer for payment of Palka’s PIP benefits. The Court of Appeals again disagreed, first noting that “the definition of ORV focuses on whether the vehicle was designed specifically for ‘off-road use.’” The Court of Appeals determined that Palka’s motocross bike was, in fact, designed for off-road use, especially in light of the fact that owner’s manual explicitly stated, “‘Careful pre-ride inspections and good maintenance are especially important because your [vehicle] is designed to be ridden in off-road competition.’ (Emphasis added.)”
