Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.305562; Unpublished
Judges Owens, Whitbeck, and Fort Hood; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an issue of a child’s domicile within the meaning of the priority provisions of MCL 500.3114 and determined that the trial court, on remand, had inappropriately granted summary disposition against defendant Farm Bureau on an issue of priority where there remained genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the injured person, Tabarak Wutwut, resided and was domiciled in the same household on the date of the accident with her father.
Under the unusual facts of this case, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of domicile and residency within the meaning of the priority provisions of MCL 500.3114(1). Under the priority provisions of §3114(1), a personal protection insurance policy 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. . . .” (emphasis added). The underlying factual issue was whether Tabarak and her father, Qaiser, were domiciled in the same household at the time of Tabarak’s accident on September 1, 2005, such that Qaiser’s no-fault insurer, Farm Bureau, is responsible for payment of benefits under the priority rules of MCL 500.3114(1) for one-half of the no-fault PIP benefits incurred by Tabarak. The court explained that if Tabarek and Qaiser were not domiciled in the same household on the date of the accident, then Bristol West, the no-fault insurer for Tabarak’s mother, would be responsible for the entire amount. If, on the other hand, Tabarak and Qaiser were domiciled together, then Farm Bureau and Bristol West would each be responsible for one-half of the no-fault benefits.
In deciding this case, the court referred to established case law regarding determination of domicile and residency issues under the priority rules of the no-fault statute, including Workman v DAIIE, 404 Mich 477 (1979) and Fowler v Auto Club Insurance Association, 254 Mich App 362 (2002). With respect to children, the court also noted the special rules that apply to children and whether they were domiciled with their parents, including (1) whether the child continues to use the parents home as the child’s mailing address; (2) whether the child maintains some possessions with the parents; (3) whether the child uses the parents’ address on the child’s driver’s license or other documents; (4) whether a room is maintained for the child at the parents’ home; and (5) whether the child is dependent upon the parents for support.
In a prior appellate decision in this same case, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the home in which Tabarak was domiciled was also Qaiser’s household. These facts included the fact that Qaiser returned to Iraq approximately two years prior to the accident, and the rest of the family remained in the Michigan home. Further, Qaiser left Michigan with the stated intention of establishing a home for his family in Iraq. Other facts suggest that although Qaiser was living in Iraq, he remained a member of his family’s Michigan household, still held title to the house, the mortgage, and some utilities remained in his name. He also continued to receive mail and the vehicle Qaiser insured with Farm Bureau continued to be stored in Michigan. In its first decision in this matter, the Court of Appeals held there were genuine disputed issues of material fact. On remand, the trial court granted summary disposition against Farm Bureau on the residency issue, relying on Qaiser’s deposition testimony taken after remand.
In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that there continued to be evidence on both sides of the issue, including testimony by Qaiser that he intended to retire in Michigan, that he viewed Michigan as his home, and that he never intended to permanently leave Michigan for Iraq. Conversely, there was other evidence outlined in the court’s prior Opinion which continued to exist to support a contrary conclusion. Based upon these disputed facts, the court determined that summary disposition should not have been granted. The matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
