Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 232688; Published
Judges Smolenski, Talbot and Wilder; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 254 Mich. App. 362, 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 published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld denial of PIP benefits to plaintiff on the basis that he was not a relative domiciled in the household of his mother within the meaning of section 3114(1).
Plaintiff was injured at work while repairing a truck. He did not own a car and did not have automobile insurance at the time of the accident. He claimed entitlement to PIP benefits under a no-fault policy issued by defendant Auto Club to his mother, alleging that he was a relative domiciled in her household under section 3114(1).
The Court of Appeals held that the determination of domicile is a question of fact. However, where the underlying facts are not in dispute, domicile is a question of law for the court.
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was divorced, 30-years old, living with his girlfriend in a “carriage house apartment” located next to his parents’ house. The carriage house and the main house had a shared address, however, the carriage house had its own entrance, its own locks, and its own walkway. Plaintiff paid rent to his parents. Plaintiff and his parents often ate together. The carriage house residence was a self-sufficient, freestanding and independent residence according to the Court of Appeals, and after weighing the pertinent factors set forth in Dairyland Insurance Company v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 123 Mich 675; 333 NW2d 322 (1983), it was clear that plaintiff was not “domiciled” with his parents.
