Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 207006; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Gribbs, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's order granting summary disposition concerning a priority dispute and held that issues of domicile under section 3114 should have been submitted to a jury.
In this case, the sole issue on appeal was whether the plaintiff was domiciled with her mother at the time of the accident, in which case, coverage would have been provided to plaintiff as a resident-relative under her mother's policy, pursuant to section 3114(1). If plaintiff was domiciled somewhere other than her mother's, then State Farm, as the insurer of the motor vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger at the time of the accident, would be responsible for all of plaintiff’s first-party no-fault benefits pursuant to section 3114(4)(a).
The facts demonstrated that the plaintiff’s life was in a state of flux at the time of the accident, and that she intended a couple of weeks prior to the accident in question, to move to Tennessee and take up residence elsewhere than her mother's.
The Court of Appeals held that a factual question had been raised regarding plaintiff’s domicile which precluded summary disposition. The facts supported “various places” that a reasonable trier of fact might find plaintiff to reside. Therefore, the issue should have been submitted to a jury rather than decided by summary disposition.
