Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #292652; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Stephens, and Krause; unanimous: per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary disposition in favor of Farmers and remanded for further proceedings on an issue of priority under §3114 of the no-fault statute where there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding where Goodson was domiciled at the time he was injured in an automobile accident.
The question of which of two insurers were obligated to provide coverage for the injuries sustained by Goodson in his motor vehicle accident depended upon whether he was domiciled in the household of his parents in Wisconsin or the household of his girlfriend in Santa Barbara on the date of the accident. The trial court concluded that although there was conflicting evidence, a reasonable jury could only conclude that Goodson lived with his parents at the Wisconsin address at the time of the accident.
In reversing and remanding, the Court of Appeals held that there was a clear dispute in the facts regarding where Goodson was domiciled on the date of the accident and it was improper for the trial court to grant summary disposition in favor of Farmers.
The Court held that under MCL 500.3114(1), personal protection insurance benefits apply 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 term “domicile” as used in §3114(1) is legally synonymous with “residence” in Michigan law. Further, the Court noted that the phrase “domiciled in the same household” is to be “viewed flexibly.” Courts interpreting issues of domicile have developed a series of non-exclusive factors for determining the parties’ residence or domicile, including the subjective intent of the person, the informality or formality of the relationship between the person and the members of the household, the existence of another place of lodging by the person alleging domicile in the household, whether the person maintains possessions at the residence, whether the person’s address appears on the person’s driver’s license and other documents, the maintenance of a bedroom at the residence, and whether the person is dependent upon the insured for financial support or assistance. Generally, questions of domicile are questions of fact unless the facts are not in dispute, in which case it is a question of law for the court.
Conflicting evidence was presented by Goodson’s parents on the issue. One testified unequivocally that he did not reside at the Wisconsin address at the time of the accident, and the other presented equivocal testimony. Both suggested the possibility that he lived at least part of the time with his girlfriend in Santa Barbara. The Court held that because there was a clear dispute in the facts, granting summary disposition was improper and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
