Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 171245; Published
Judges Doctoroff, Hood, and Gribbs; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 216 Mich App 261; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Miscellaneous Provisions
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam published Opinion in a first-party action, the Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court's order denying plaintiff no-fault benefits and sanctioning him for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Plaintiff was injured while a passenger in an uninsured vehicle involved in a single car accident. The plaintiff did not have a policy of no-fault insurance issued to him in his name. At the time of the accident, however, plaintiff was living with his girlfriend and their two-year old daughter. Plaintiffs girlfriend was insured under a policy issued by defendant, which listed the two-year old daughter as a "future driver." Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to coverage under this policy, because he was related to a person named in the policy, i.e., his two-year old daughter. However, the court found that the term "the person named in the policy" is synonymous with the term "the named insured." Furthermore, merely listing a person as a potential designated driver on a no-fault policy does not make that person a "named insured." In the policy issued by defendant, plaintiffs girlfriend is the only person legally capable of driving, named in the policy, and her name is the only one that appeared on the declaration page. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiffs girlfriend was the sole named insured under the policy.
Plaintiff also claimed that he was entitled to coverage because he is a "relative" of his girlfriend pursuant to the policy because of her status as the mother of plaintiff s child. However, the policy defined the term "relative" as a "person related to the named insured by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of the same household." It is undisputed that plaintiff was not married to or adopted by his girlfriend. Despite the fact that plaintiff had a child with his girlfriend, he was not related to her "by blood," which must be established by ancestor and not progeny.
The Court of Appeals found the trial court's award of sanctions against plaintiff to be proper. Plaintiffs argument that he was related to a named insured was contrary to two published opinions of the Michigan Court of Appeals, and, therefore, devoid of arguable legal merit.
The Court of Appeals also awarded defendant costs because plaintiffs appeal was vexatious, concluding that plaintiff had no reasonable basis to believe that there was a meritorious issue on appeal. Furthermore, plaintiffs brief on appeal was in violation of the court rules, and did not make a fair presentation of the facts and issues. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals sanctioned plaintiff the sum of $1,000, in addition to the sanctions imposed by the trial court.
