Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 77470; Published
Opinion by Justice Levin; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 426 Mich 346; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Equal Priority Situations [§3114(6)]
Recoupment Between Equal Priority Insurers [§3115(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Justice Levin, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in Item No. 877 and held that where a person injured in an automobile accident is not "named" in a policy of no-fault insurance but is covered pursuant to §3114(1) under both a spouse's policy and a policy of a relative domiciled in the same household as the insured person, the insurer of the injured person's spouse and the insurer of a relative domiciled in the same household are in the same order of priority. Therefore, the insurer of the injured person's spouse is entitled to partial recoupment from the insurer of the injured person's relative. The Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in the earlier decision in Martin v DAIIE which had concluded that the insurer of the injured person's spouse was in a higher order of priority. The Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the grammatical construction of §3114(1) that would support the conclusion that a spouse's insurer was in a higher order of priority than the insurer of a relative.