Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 157072; Unpublished
Judges Connor, Wahls, and Saad; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished decision, the Court of Appeals addressed the various factors in determining plaintiffs domicile under the priority provisions of §3114(1) of the no-fault act for purposes of determining which of two potential insurers was responsible for plaintiffs medical expenses which arose out of an automobile accident.
The Court of Appeals summarized the factors which should be considered in determining whether a person is domiciled in the same household as the insured for purposes of priority under §3114(1) as follows:
1. the subjective or declared intent of the person to remain indefinitely or permanently in the insured's household;
2. the formality or informality of the relationship between the person and the members of the insured's household;
3. whether the place where the person lives is in the same house, within the same curtilage, or upon the same premises as the insured; and
4. the existence of another place of lodging for the person alleging domicile in the household.
Further, the court held that plaintiffs military status is also relevant to the question of domicile. Due to the fact that military personnel often do not have a choice of where they are stationed, there is a presumption in favor of retaining domicile in one's home state.
After reviewing all of the above factors and considering plaintiffs military status, the court concluded that plaintiff was domiciled in Michigan at the time of the accident. Although plaintiff was stationed with the military in Maryland at the time of the accident, plaintiffs temporary military address does not affect his domicile. The court further noted that there were informal family relationships between plaintiff and other family members where he was free to treat his relatives' homes as his own. Additionally, plaintiff resided at the same premises with his family while he was staying in Michigan. Further, plaintiffs permanent mailing address was at his parents' home in Michigan, plaintiff maintained some of his personal possessions in Michigan, plaintiff used his parents' address on both his driver's license and his voter registration, plaintiff had the use of a guest room in his parents' home. In considering all of these factors, the court held that the evidence weighed in favor of domicile in Michigan.
