Court of Appeals; Docket No. 305592; Unpublished;
Judges Murphy, O’Connell, and Whitbeck; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion;
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of ACIA in this priority dispute as to injuries received by a pedestrian while walking across the highway and struck by a motor vehicle insured by ACIA. The dispute concerned whether or not Elizabeth Ulinski was “domiciled in the same household” as her mother at the time of the accident and, thus, therefore establishing priority for no-fault benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3114(1). The trial court found as a matter of law that Elizabeth was domiciled in her mother’s household when the accident occurred and, therefore, Frankenmuth was the highest priority insurer under § 3114 and that ACIA was not obligated to provide no-fault benefits under MCL 500.3115(1).
The provisions of MCL 500.3114(1) state that “a personal protection insurance policy … applies to accidental bodily injury to a 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.” In this case, there was no dispute that Elizabeth and her mother were "relatives," that the mother was a named insured under the Frankenmuth policy, and that Elizabeth’s injuries arose from an accident involving a motor vehicle. Thus, the question of priority under § 3114(1) turned on whether or not Elizabeth was “domiciled” in her mother’s household at the time of the accident. If not, coverage would be provided under ACIA’s policy pursuant to § 3115(1) which states that “except as provided in subsection (1) of section 3114, a person suffering accidental bodily injury while not an occupant of a motor vehicle shall claim personal protection insurance benefits from insurers in the following order of priority: (a) Insurers of owners or registrants of motor vehicles involved in the accident.” In affirming the trial court determination on summary disposition that Elizabeth was domiciled in her mother’s household and therefore covered under the Frankenmuth policy, the Court of Appeals noted that this case presents a “very close call” but that after weighing the competing factors, Elizabeth was domiciled in her mother’s household at the time of the accident.
The Court noted that the term “domicile” as contained in § 3114(1) does not have a statutory definition. However, case law has developed a number of factors for guidance in addressing the question of domicile, which factors include (1) the subjective or declared intent of the claimant to remain indefinitely in the insured’s household, (2) the formality of the relationship between the claimant and the members of the household, (3) whether the place where the claimant lives is in the same house . . . (4) the existence of another place of lodging for the person alleging domicile.
The Court of Appeals when examining the factors in this case determined that some of them support a conclusion that Elizabeth was domiciled in the same household but, others support the opposite conclusion. The facts were that Elizabeth was 25 years old on the date of the accident and had moved out of her mother’s house seven years earlier. While supporting herself through prostitution, she lived in various cheap motels with friends, and would periodically return to her mother’s house for one-to-three nights at a time. Elizabeth had a declared intent not to return and live in her mother’s house and was not living in her mother’s house at the time she was injured. However, the Court also noted that Elizabeth continuously used her mother’s home as her mailing address and listed her mother’s home as her own on her Michigan identification card, voter’s registration, cellular telephone contract, and application for SSI benefits. She also maintained possessions at her mother’s house and always had a room in which to stay when she visited her mother’s home.
Based upon a weighing of the factors outlined above the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court had not erred in finding that Elizabeth was domiciled in her mother’s house and, therefore, affirmed summary disposition in favor of ACIA.
