Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 330436; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Meter and Ronayne Krause; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a priority dispute between insurers, the Court of Appeals held that third-party defendant Fremont Insurance, who insured the injured party’s grandparents, was not responsible for paying PIP benefits because the injured party was not “domiciled” with her grandparents at the time of the accident, within the meaning of MCL 500.3114.
Kayla Simpson, a pedestrian, was injured on November 26, 2013, when she was hit by a motor vehicle. It was a hit-and-run accident, and the driver and the vehicle were never identified. Simpson, who lived a transient and nomadic lifestyle and who had been in jail, did not have insurance. She received medical treatment for her injuries from plaintiffs Bronson Health Care Group, Inc. and Borgess Medical Center, which stipulated to the dismissal of their subrogated claims for PIP benefits after settling their claims with Farm Bureau. The Michigan Assigned Claims Facility (MACF) had assigned the PIP claims to Farm Bureau, given the unidentified driver and the apparent absence of any no-fault policy. Farm Bureau then filed a third-party complaint against Fremont, which insured Simpson’s grandparents, upon finding evidence that led Farm Bureau to believe that Simpson’s domicile at the time of her accident was in her grandparents’ home. The issue in the case was whether Simpson, who is a relative of her grandparents, was domiciled with her grandparents under §3114(1), such that Fremont was the priority insurer. The trial court granted summary disposition for Fremont, finding that Simpson was homeless and domiciled in the city in which she was homeless, and not in her grandparents’ home.
The Court of Appeals affirmed that Fremont was not obligated to pay PIP benefits, but did so for different reasons. According to the Court, the trial court found that, while Simpson had established a domicile at her grandparents’ home in 2012 when she lived there from April to August of that year, she had “established a new domicile in the city where she was homeless.”
The Court of Appeals noted the trial court relied on People v Dowdy, 489 Mich 373 (2011), with respect to its “homeless” analysis. The Court explained:
“We hold that, on the basis of the existing record, there was a lack of evidence sufficient to survive summary disposition showing that Simpson was ever domiciled in her grandparents’ household, let alone at the time of the accident. Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to resolve whether Simpson renounced, by way of her actions, the purported 2012 domicile at the grandparents’ home and whether Simpson established a subsequent or new domicile elsewhere …. There was no evidence presented indicating that Simpson had lived with her grandparents before April 20, 2012, and her grandmother kicked her out of the house on August14, 2012, because of her conduct. As to the four-month period, there is nothing in the record suggesting that the grandparents’ house was Simpson’s ‘true, fixed, permanent home, and principal establishment, and to which, whenever [she] [was] absent, [she] ha[d] the intention of returning.’ … It simply cannot be said that the grandparents’ home, in the April to August 2012 timeframe, was a place where Simpson ‘ha[d] voluntarily fixed h[er] abode not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it h[er] home, either permanently or for an indefinite or unlimited length of time.’ … There was nothing voluntary about Simpson’s 2012 stay with her grandparents; it was for a mere special or temporary purpose associated with the tether, and even then Simpson could not conform her conduct to that demanded by her grandparents, losing the tether and winding up in jail.”
The Court further said that, after Simpson left her grandparents’ home in August 2012, the couple of overnight stays on her grandparents’ couch and the use of her grandparents’ address to get a Michigan identification card and for court proceedings “clearly did not” establish domicile in her grandparents’ house. The Court observed:
“Simpson did not stay there, did not have possessions there, did not have a bedroom or designated space there, did not eat or do laundry there, was actually not welcome there because of her lifestyle, and she did not use the address for mailings associated with welfare benefits and DHHS documents. There is also nothing in the record revealing that her grandparents provided Simpson with financial support.”
Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Farm Bureau did not submit sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact concerning whether Simpson was ever domiciled in her grandparents’ home, let alone at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the Court held that Farm Bureau’s motion for summary disposition was properly denied and summary disposition was properly granted for Fremont.
