Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262936; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, Neff, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [3114(1)]
Resident Relative [3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the court interpreted the priority provisions of §3114(1) of the Act to determine whether the injured plaintiff who was no longer domiciled in the same household of his wife was entitled to be covered under the insurance policy issued and providing coverage to the wife.
The facts were undisputed in this case that Southern Michigan Insurance Company issued a no-fault policy to Wayne Draper and his wife in January, 2004. In March, 2004, Wayne Draper signed a policy change form and gave permission for his name to be removed from the policy. He was injured in April, 2004 while riding as a passenger in a vehicle insured by the defendant. At the time of the accident, he was not domiciled with his wife and divorce proceedings were ongoing. The divorce was finalized after the accident.
In interpreting the priority provisions of §3114(1), the court held the spouse of a named insured need not be domiciled with the named insured to be eligible for personal protection insurance benefits under the provisions of that section, which states, “a personal protection insurance policy described in section 3101(1) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person’s spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident.”
The court noted that the comma following “the person’s spouse” indicates the phrase “domiciled in the same household” modifies only “a relative of either.” Decisions addressing priority of insurers implicitly have recognized a spouse of the named insured who is not domiciled in the same household as the named insured, continues to be covered by the policy. See, Michigan Mutual Insurance Company v Allstate Insurance Company, 146 Mich App 475 (1985).
The court also held the endorsement signed by Wayne Draper in which he permitted his name to be removed from the policy did not change the result. Although Draper had the right to terminate his coverage, pursuant to MCL 500.3020(1)(a), which requires a policy of insurance to provide it may be cancelled at any time at the request of the insured, here Draper did not request cancellation of the policy. He only gave permission for modification, specifically, for his name to be removed from the above referenced policy. Even if the request was effective so as to no longer have Wayne Draper a named insured under the policy, this request had no effect on Wayne Draper’s eligibility to recover personal protection benefits as a spouse of the other named insured.
