Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262037; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Cooper, and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed a priority dispute in a case where the injured person had been removed from his mother’s home and placed into foster care. State Farm insured the mother and MIC Insurance insured the foster parents. The court determined the facts were not disputed and they established that the injured person was “domiciled” in his mother’s home, even though temporarily residing in foster care. Under §3114(1), coverage was to be provided by State Farm, the insurer of the mother, since that section of the statute provides coverage is to be provided to the person named in the policy, the person’s spouse, and “a relative of either domiciled in the same household.”
Jonathan Boyce was injured in a motor vehicle accident at a time when he was living with his foster parents. The issue on appeal was whether he was “domiciled” in his mother’s home or at the foster home at the time of the accident, for purposes of determining PIP benefits under §3114(1), the priority provision of the statute. It was not disputed Boyce was a “family member” under the insurance providing coverage to the foster parents, since the definition contained in the policy of family member included a “ward or foster child” who was a “resident” of the household. However, §3114(1) provides coverage for a relative of the insured where the relative is “domiciled” in the same household as the insured. It was undisputed Boyce was considered a relative of his foster parents, however, the court concluded he was not domiciled in their household, but rather, in the household of his mother. The court applied multiple factors as set forth in Workman v DAIIE, 404 Mich 477 (1979). In this case, Boyce was only temporarily in the custody of the court, he wanted to return home, he was permitted to visit his mother on weekends, he also maintained a bedroom at his mother’s home with personal belongings, and the only belongings he kept at the foster home was his clothing.
Based upon these facts, the court affirmed the trial court determination that Boyce was domiciled in his mother’s home and coverage was to be provided by State Farm.
