Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259850, #259851, #260459, and #260460; Published
Judges Fort Hood, Bandstra, and Donofrio; unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 272 Mich. App. 410, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [3114(1)]
Resident Relative [3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion by Judge Bandstra, the Court of Appeals held that although a person may be an illegal alien, the person is not disqualified from being “domiciled in a Michigan household under MCL 500.3114(1).”
The issue in this case was whether plaintiffs, who were illegal aliens, were “domiciled in the same household” as defendant Farm Bureau’s insureds. In the trial court and on appeal, defendant argued that an illegal alien cannot be domiciled in the household of a Michigan resident because, being subject to apprehension and deportation, that person can have no intention of remaining in the State. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that under Workman v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 440 Mich 477 (1979) [RB #143] and Williams v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 202 Mich App 491 (1994) [RB #1675], the legal meaning of “domiciled in the same household” as the insured should be interpreted with flexibility and within the context of numerous factors. Those factors include:
(1) the declared intent of the person to remain in the domicile;
(2) the formality of the relationship;
(3) whether the place where the person lives is in the same house, within the same curtilage or upon the same premises;
(4) the existence of another place of lodging;
(5) the person’s mailing address;
(6) whether the person maintains possessions at the insured’s home;
(7) whether the insured’s address appears on the person’s driver’s license or other documents;
(8) whether the person has a bedroom in the insured’s home; and
(9) whether the person is dependent upon the insured for financial support.
The court further noted that when considering these factors, no factor is determinative. Moreover, the question of a person’s intent to remain in the State, despite the risk of apprehension and deportation, is a question of fact. In this regard, the court stated:
“‘[i]n considering these factors, no one factor is, in itself, determinative; instead each factor must be balanced and weighed with the others. . . .
Thus, we must reject Farm Bureau’s argument that an illegal alien cannot be domiciled in the household of a Michigan insured because, being subject to apprehension and deportation, that person can have no intention of remaining within the state. Farm Bureau’s argument would exalt the subjective intent of a person to a determinative status in contravention of Workman. . . . As this Court stated in Williams, . . . giving special weight to the intent factor is improper.
Further, the question of an individual’s intent is generally one of fact. . . . thus, the question of plaintiffs’ intent to remain in the state despite the risk of being apprehended and deported is one of fact.”
The court then rejected defendant’s argument that because plaintiffs engaged in wrongful conduct by entering the United States illegally, they should not be rewarded for their wrongful conduct by being entitled to personal injury protection benefits. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals noted that the wrongful conduct rule only applies if there is a sufficient causal nexus between the illegal conduct and the asserted damages. In this case, plaintiffs’ illegal presence in Michigan was not a proximate cause of their involvement in the accident which resulted in their injuries. Therefore, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . the wrongful conduct rule only applies if a ‘sufficient causal nexus exist[s] between the plaintiff’s illegal conduct and the plaintiff’s asserted damages. . . . Plaintiffs’ illegal presence in the United States was not a proximate cause of their involvement in the April 2003 accident and their resulting injuries. . . . Plaintiffs’ illegal presence in the United States, even if considered to be a ‘but-for’ cause of the accident, is such a remote cause that the wrongful conduct rule does not bar them from recovering PIP benefits.”
