Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 146539; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Holbrook, Jr., and Penzien; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Separated and Divorced Spouses [§3114(1)]
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant USAA which found that a no-fault policy USAA issued to Robert Evasic's mother did not apply to an auto accident injury sustained by Robert Evasic in Michigan because Evasic was considered to be a resident of his father's home in Oklahoma, not his mother's home in Michigan.
In affirming the trial court's decision that Robert Evasic was domiciled in Oklahoma, the court reviewed several factors that are to be taken into consideration by trial courts in determining residency. Those factors are set forth in previous decisions in Workman v DAIIE (Item No. 143) and Dobson v Maki, 184 Mich App 244 (1990). In affirming the conclusion that Robert Evasic was domiciled in his father's home in Oklahoma, the court noted that after Robert's parents were divorced, he moved to Oklahoma in 1983 and lived with his father and qualified for resident tuition in Oklahoma where he graduated in 1987. He continued to live at his father's house after graduation. In early 1988, Robert came to Michigan to look for work and was using his mother's home as a base from which to conduct his job search. At the time of the accident, Robert had an Oklahoma driver's license, a checking account in Oklahoma, was registered to vote in Oklahoma, considered his father's house to be his home base and legal residence, stored the majority of his possessions at his father's house, and had no permanent intention of remaining at his mother's house if his job search had been successful. Robert received mail at both addresses. Based on these facts, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The court further refused to find Robert to be a "dual resident" of both of his parents' homes and thus refused to pro rate the liability between the mother and father's insurance companies. Rather, pursuant to the out-of-state insurer provisions of §3163, the court assigned liability for paying no-fault benefits to American States, the insurer of Robert's father.
Finally, the court refused to shift liability away from American States on the basis of a standard "other insurance'' provisions of the policy which pro rates liability among other collectible insurance. Here the court concluded that there was no other collectible insurance applicable to this case, and thus American States had full liability for Robert's no-fault PIP benefits.
