Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 147971; Published
Judges Shepherd, Holbrook, and MacKenzie; 2-1 (with Judge Mackenzie Dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 202 Mich App 491; 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 2-1 published Opinion authored by Judge Holbrook, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of plaintiff, holding as a matter of law, plaintiff was a resident of his parents' household at the time of his automobile accident and, therefore, was entitled to Michigan no-fault automobile PIP benefits under a policy issued to his parents.
Plaintiff’s automobile accident occurred while he was in the process of moving from Nevada back to his parents home in Michigan. At the time of the accident, plaintiff had Nevada license plates and Nevada car insurance on his automobile. On the other hand, plaintiff had informed his parents that he was moving back to Michigan. Plaintiff had quit his job, relinquished his apartment, forwarded his mail to his parents' address in Michigan, and loaded all of his personal belongings into his vehicle. Furthermore, he had closed his bank account in Nevada and opened another one in Michigan.
The court began its analysis by noting that plaintiff would be entitled to Michigan no-fault benefits under the policy issued by defendant to his parents under §3111, if plaintiff was domiciled in the same household as his parents. In determining whether a person is domiciled in the same household of the insured, the Court of Appeals held that the following factors should be considered: (1) 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 of the insured; and (4) the existence of another place of lodging for the person alleging domicile in the household. In addition, the court held that the following additional factors are relevant as well: (1) the person's mailing address; (2) whether the person maintains possessions in the insured's home; (3) whether the insured's address appears on the person's driver's license and other documents; (4) whether a bedroom is maintained for the person at the insured's home; and (5) whether the person is dependent upon the insured for financial support or assistance.
Based upon these factors, the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court's determination that plaintiff was domiciled in Michigan at the time of the accident. While the Court of Appeals found error in the trial court giving "special weight" to plaintiffs stated intent to be domiciled in Michigan, the Court of Appeals did not find this to be reversible error where the overwhelming evidence supported plaintiffs contention that he was domiciled in his parents' household.
Judge MacKenzie dissented and would find that plaintiff was not domiciled in his parents' home at the time of the accident. The dissent would hold that domicile requires two elements - - intent and physical presence -- and that these two elements must occur at the same time. In this case, plaintiff intended to reside at his parents' house, but had not yet physically established himself at his parents' home at the time of the accident.
