Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 294324; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Wilder, and Stephens; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant State Farm and remanded for further proceedings on an issue of priority under Section 3114(1) of the No-Fault Statute where there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding where the injured insured person was domiciled at the time she was in an automobile accident.
The trial court found that Sara Campanelli, a minor, was domiciled in Michigan at the time of the motor vehicle accident that resulted in her death. Therefore, the Court concluded that under MCL 500.3114(1), the plaintiff Auto Club was responsible for payment of the personal injury protection benefits arising from Sarah’s death. MCL 500.3114(1) provides that, with certain exceptions, a personal protection insurance policy described in 3101(1) applies to:
“accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person’s spouse, and a relative of either domicile in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident.”
In this case, if Sara was not domiciled in the same household of a relative, then under MCL 500.3114(4)(a), State Farm would be responsible for her benefits as the insurer of the owner or registrant of the vehicle occupied by Sara.
In reversing the trial court's determination of the issue of domicile as matter of law, the Court of Appeals held that the statutory term “domiciled in the same household” has no absolute meaning and may vary according to circumstances. Generally, a determination involving a person’s domicile is a question of fact. A number of factors are weighed and balanced with each other with no one factor being determinative. In Workman v. DAIIE, 404 Mich 477 (1979), the Supreme Court listed a number of factors to be considered when determining the issue of domicile including (1) the subjective or declared intent of the person, (2) the formality or informality of the relationship between the person and the members of the household, (3) the place where the person lives within the household, and (4) the existence of another place of lodging by the person alleging domicile in the household.
Additionally, the Court of Appeals has added other relevant factors to be considered including (1) whether the child continues to use the parent’s home as the child’s mailing address, (2) whether the child maintains some possessions with the parents, (3) whether the child uses the parents’ address on the child’s driver's license or other documents, (4) whether a room is maintained for the child at the parents’ home, and (5) whether the child is dependent upon the parents for support.
In this case, there is evidence that Sara, a minor, had expressed the intent to stay in Michigan with her mother. However, the child’s father indicated that there was no intent for Sara to permanently remain in Michigan and that she had expressed her intention to return to Tennessee with both her sister and her father.
In reversing, the trial court's grant of Summary Disposition in favor of State Farm, the Court of Appeals held that these circumstances raised genuine issues of material fact related to Sara’s intentions. Consideration of the other factors did not favor either location in determining the issue of domicile. Therefore, because the trial court is not permitted to determine facts or assess credibility on a motion for summary disposition, there is a genuine issue of material fact and summary disposition is improper as to either party.
The Court of Appeals also held that it was not bound by determinations made in the Livingston Probate Court and the Wayne Circuit Court that Sara was domiciled in Tennessee. Those courts did not determine Sara’s domicile for purposes of insurance coverage, and there is no authority that suggests that the trial court was required to adopt a ruling of different jurisdictions deciding the issue for a different purpose for different parties.
Accordingly, the grant of summary disposition in favor of State Farm was reversed and the matter was remanded.
