Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.306050; Published
Judges Boonstra, Saad, and Hoekstra; Unanimous; By Judge Saad
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
On May 16, 2014, the Michigan Supreme Court Denied Leave to Appeal; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
When Claimants Can Receive PIP Benefits Through the Assigned Claims Facility [§3172(1)]
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Saad, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression, held that an itinerant agricultural worker, who did not have a permanent residence in any state, but lived, worked, and resided in three different states where he picked fruit on a seasonal basis, was a resident of Michigan and, therefore, PIP benefits were payable by Titan Insurance Company who was assigned to pay the claim pursuant to the procedures of the Assigned Claims Facility, rather than from Integon, an admitted insurer under §3163, which would only be obligated to provide benefits in the event that the injury arose out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, “by an out-of-state resident” insured under the Integon policy.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2009 in the state of Michigan and involved a vehicle owned by Salvador Lorenzo. Lorenzo, prior to the accident, had insured the vehicle in the state of North Carolina with a North Carolina auto insurance policy through Integon. At the time he applied for the policy, Lorenzo had a driver’s license issued by the state of Michigan. The driver’s license showed Lorenzo’s address as a Michigan address. However, on the Integon automobile insurance application, Lorenzo listed his address as a North Carolina address.
At the time of the accident, Lorenzo lived and worked in Michigan, had all of his possessions with him in Michigan, and had no other residence or place he looked to or could be regarded as his home. When Lorenzo moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan in early July 2009, he had no intent to permanently remain in Michigan, but intended to make Grand Rapids his home until October 2009. Thereafter, Lorenzo planned to continue, and did continue, to travel the same circuit between Michigan, Florida, and North Carolina, as he had done for several years working in fruit harvesting and living, for the most part, in migrant housing. In early July, prior to the accident, Lorenzo and two other relatives drove to Michigan and rented an apartment together in Grand Rapids. They drove together each day to a farm in Allegan County to harvest blueberries.
The issue of entitlement to no-fault benefits turned on whether Lorenzo was a Michigan resident at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeals noted that this issue was one of first impression as to the issue of residency of a seasonal agricultural worker under the provisions of §3163. Under §3163, an insurer transacting automobile liability insurance in Michigan must file a written certification that any accidental bodily injury occurring in the State, arising 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 insurance,” is subject to the personal and property protection insurance system under this Act. In this case, Integon, Lorenzo’s North Carolina auto insurer, had filed the required §3163 certification. However, Integon denied payment of no-fault benefits because it alleged that Lorenzo was, in fact, a Michigan resident and, under §3163(1), Integon is only obligated to pay for injuries or property damage occurring in Michigan if the owner of the vehicle is a resident of another state. The trial court determined that based upon the amount of time Lorenzo spent in the state of Florida, Florida was his residence.
In reversing and determining that Lorenzo was a Michigan resident, thus making Titan responsible for payment of the applicable no-fault benefits, the court cited established law in Michigan that “every person must have a domicile somewhere.” Here, Lorenzo picked fruit on a seasonal basis, maintained no other residence when he lived in Michigan, and took all of his worldly belongings with him when he traveled to each of the three states to work. Although the court noted that, given the nature of Lorenzo’s itinerant lifestyle, his ties to Michigan appeared as strong or as tenuous as his ties to North Carolina or Florida, under the unique facts of this case, when the accident occurred, Lorenzo was, in fact, a resident of Michigan as a matter of law. Accordingly, Titan was the proper insurer for PIP benefits.
