Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 175458; Published
Judges Jansen, Hoekstraand, and Morris; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 218 Mich App 105; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous published per curiam Opinion deals with issues regarding the admitted insurer provisions of §3163 of the statute and questions of domicile under §3114.
The court held that an out-of-state college student injured in Michigan while occupying a vehicle registered in New Jersey and insured by a §3163 certified insurer was entitled to recover no-fault benefits from the insurer of his parents, which insurer was also a §3163 certified insurer. Plaintiff sustained his injury while a passenger in a vehicle registered in New Jersey and involved in a head-on collision in Detroit. Plaintiffs parents lived in Maryland and were insured by Progressive Casualty. The vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger was insured by USAA. Both insurers had filed a §3163 certificate subjecting them to the no-fault PIP system.
The court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition finding plaintiff to be "domiciled" in his parents' household in Maryland. The court noted that under §3114, there are several relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a person is domiciled in the same household as an insured person. These factors include the subjective or declared intent of the person to remain in the place he contends is his domicile, the formality of the relationship between the person and members of that household, whether the place where the person lives is the same house or upon the same premises, and the existence of another place of lodging by the person alleging residence. When considering whether children are domiciled with their parents, there are other relevant indicia of domicile which include (1) whether the person continues to use his parents' home as his mailing address, (2) whether he maintains some possessions with his parents, (3) whether he uses his parents' address on his driver's license or other documents, (4) whether a room is maintained for the person at his parents' home, and (S) whether the person is dependent upon the parents for support In this particular case, all five of these factors were present and therefore the injured college student was properly considered to be domiciled in his parents' home in Maryland.
The next question was whether Progressive Casualty was obligated to pay no-fault PIP benefits pursuant to the provisions of §3163. This section would obligate Progressive to pay PIP benefits for "any accidental bodily injury...occurring in this state from the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle by an out-of-state resident who is insured under its automobile liability policies." The court found that the college student was "using" a motor vehicle by virtue of his presence in the vehicle as a passenger. This is consistent with the earlier Court of Appeals decision in Michigan Mutual Insurance Company v Dowell (Item No. 1702).
The next question was whether plaintiff college student was "insured" under the Progressive policy. On this issue, the court rejected Progressive's argument that §3163 requires that the PIP claimant be considered an "insured" under the third party liability provisions of the policy. In this regard, the court stated:
"We reject Progressive's attempt to equate the Legislature's use of the term 'automobile liability insurance policies' in §3163 to a requirement that an injured party trying to collect PIP benefits be covered under the tort liability portion of a policy which, like the instant policy, includes the injured party as a covered insured under different sections of the policy. Such an interpretation is too narrow and would negate the apparent intent of §3163, which is to guarantee that insured non-residents injured in Michigan are protected against economic loss to the same extent as Michigan residents Here, plaintiff was covered under other sections of the policy, including a section concerning payment for personal injuries. Looking at the policy as a whole, instead of focusing on the different areas of coverages Progressive suggests, it is clear that plaintiff was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by Progressive."
