Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 109944; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Shepherd, and McDonald; 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)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the priority provisions of §3114 to determine whether the injured passenger in an automobile accident was required to seek benefits first from either of his two sisters with whom he was temporarily residing, or from the insurer of the owner of the vehicle in which the injured party was riding.
Michael Beal was injured in an automobile accident while a passenger in an automobile. Arnica Mutual was the insurer of the owner of the vehicle. Arnica paid Michael's PIP benefits and sought reimbursement from Allstate or Auto Club, the insurers of Michael's two sisters.
Ten days before the accident, Michael Beal packed a suitcase full of his clothes and went to Detroit from Kalamazoo. It was his intent to move to Detroit to work at a construction job which he had been offered. He stayed alternately in the homes of his two sisters in the Detroit area, for the 10 days preceding the accident He had not changed his mailing address or driver's license address from Kalamazoo, neither of his sisters maintained a separate bedroom for him, and he was not financially dependent upon either sister.
In reversing the trial court's finding that Allstate was obligated to pay Michael's insurance benefits, the Court of Appeals reviewed the factors set forth in Workman v DAIIE, 404 Mich 477 (1979), which articulated the factors relevant to a determination of whether a person is domiciled in the same household as the insured for purposes of §3114. These factors include: (1) the subjective or declared intent of the person to remain indefinitely or permanently, (2) the formality or informality of the relationship between the person and the insured, (3) whether the place where the person lives is the same house of the insured, and (4) the existence of another place of lodging for that person.
In addition, the court noted several other factors which have been utilized for determining domicile of an individual, including the person's mailing address, where that person maintains his possessions, the address on the person's driver's license, whether a bedroom is maintained for that person, and whether the person is dependent upon the insured for financial support.
In consideration of all of the factors and facts in this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that it could not say whether Michael Beal was domiciled with either of the two sisters. Instead, the court found that Beal was merely visiting both of his sisters temporarily. Consequently, the court concluded that summary disposition should have been granted to both defendants, as Arnica (the insurer of the owner of the vehicle) was obligated to pay Michael's PIP benefits.
