Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 300808; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, Meter, and Donofrio; 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)]
Procedures Applicable to Disputes Between Two or More Insurers [3172(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant Chrysler and against defendant AIG in a case concerning the issue of priority of coverage for PIP benefits, which turned upon the issue of Plaintiff's domicile.
Plaintiff was injured while driving a vehicle insured by defendant Chrysler Insurance Company in an accident that occurred in September 2007 in the City of Detroit. Plaintiff's parents owned a vehicle insured by defendant AIG and his parents were the named insureds on that policy. A dispute arose between Chrysler and AIG as to which had priority for payment of plaintiff's PIP benefits. Pursuant to MCL 500.3172, the claim was assigned by the Assigned Claims Facility to Allstate which then processed the claim and sought reimbursement from the appropriate insurer.
The question of priority turned upon whether or not plaintiff was a "resident relative" of his parents on the date of the accident. Priority in this case is determined by MCL 500.3114(1) which provides that personal protection 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."
Chrysler claimed that plaintiff was in fact domiciled and a resident relative of his parent's home at the time of his accident. The parties did not dispute the underlying facts, and therefore, the trial court determined the matter as a question of law.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the various factors outlined in Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477 (1979) and Williams v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 202 Mich App 491 (1993), which identified several facts to determine a person's domicile including (1) subjective or declared intent, (2) formality or informality of the relationship, (3) whether the place where the person lives is in the same house, (4) the existence of another place of lodging by the person alleging residence or domicile in the household, (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 and other documents, (8) whether a bedroom is maintained for the person at the insured's home, and (9) whether the person is dependent upon the insured for financial support or assistance.
In analyzing the various nine factors outlined above, the court determined that plaintiff was domiciled at the home of his parents at the time of the accident. The court further noted that the plaintiff had stated in an examination under oath that he was not living at his parent's residence at the time of his accident. In a later deposition, plaintiff clarified his statements made during his EUO. In his deposition, he clarified he had always lived at that residence and did at the time of the accident. Contrary to AIG's argument, plaintiff's EUO did not demonstrate within any certainty where he was living at the time of the accident and did not definitively establish that he was not living with his parents at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, the trial court properly granted Chrysler's motion for summary disposition and ordered AIG to reimburse Allstate.
