Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #313367; Unpublished
Judges Borello, Whitbeck, and K.F. Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff following a jury finding that the injured claimant was domiciled in Michigan with his grandmother/adoptive mother, which finding entitled the plaintiff to recover benefits under her no-fault policy. Although the Court of Appeals analyzed both no-fault and various evidentiary issues while resolving this case, the evidentiary issues that did not directly implicate the no-fault issues are beyond the scope of this summary, and are therefore not discussed.
Plaintiff in this case, was injured in an accident in May of 2003. It was undisputed by the parties that the only insurance available to plaintiff was through his grandmother/adoptive mother’s Auto-Owners insurance policy, and that plaintiff was only entitled to this coverage “if he was domiciled with [her] at the time of the accident . . .” A jury trial was held on the issue of plaintiff’s domicile, and the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, finding that the plaintiff was domiciled with his grandmother/adoptive mother as required to recover PIP benefits under the Auto-Owners policy. Auto-Owners brought this appeal seeking relief from the trial court’s judgment, arguing that the trial court improperly allowed the jury to consider multiple pieces of evidence. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that the controverted evidence was properly admitted and relied on by the jury.