Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 212721; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Holbrook, and Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that under the priority provisions of section 3114(1), a no-fault automobile insurance policy issued by defendant Allstate to the boyfriend of a vehicle owner, did not provide PIP coverage to the vehicle owner's brother and sister who lived with the vehicle owner at the time the siblings were injured in an accident.
The court held that because the policy was issued to the owner's boyfriend and not to the owner, the owner's siblings were not covered. In this regard, the court held:
"Section 3114(1) provides that 'a personal protection insurance policy described in section 3101(1) applies 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.' Plaintiff argues that defendant is responsible for half of the PIP benefits plaintiff paid to the claimants because the claimants were resident relatives of Wcislo, the owner of the vehicle covered by a policy issued by defendant. However, Wcislo was not the named insured of the policy issued by defendant. Although the claimants' sister was the owner of the vehicle covered by a no-fault policy, that policy was issued by defendant to her boyfriend, not to her, and she was therefore not a named insured. To allow PIP coverage to extend not only to the girlfriend of the named insured but to any relative domiciled with her would expand the insurer's exposure to a point beyond justifiable limits. The claimants were not named in the policy, married to the named insured, or related to the named insured. Therefore, according to the plain language of MCLA 500.3114(1), the policy issued by defendant to the claimants' sister's boyfriend did not apply to the claimants, and the claimants were not entitled to PIP benefits under the policy."
The court went on to note in footnote 1 that previous decisions have “held that even a person listed in a policy as a designated driver of a vehicle covered by the policy, but not listed as the named insured, is not a ‘ person named in the policy’ for purposes of PIP coverage under section 3114(1),” citing Cvengros v Farm Bureau Insurance [Item No. 2072] and Harwood v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 211 Mich App 249 (1995)
