Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No.107332; Unpublished
Judges Shepherd, Beasley, and Gribbs; 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 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the insurer of the father of a single 34-year old male was liable to pay no-fault benefits when the son (who owned no vehicle) was injured while a pedestrian. Even though the son did not actually live under the same physical roof as his father, the court held that under the priority provisions of §3114(1), the father's "household" extended to both residential premises.
The facts of this case are somewhat unusual. The father and mother of the injured victim lived in separate houses approximately five miles apart. The mother owned one house jointly with her sister and the father and mother owned the other house. The mother usually stayed in the home with her sister, but occasionally would sleep in the father's residence. The injured son stayed in the home with his mother. The father and mother would have unlimited access to each of the residences and the father would eat dinner at the mother's home every night. The father was the sole source of support for both houses.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the two houses comprised one household for purposes of §3114(1). Therefore, a policy issued to the father would cover any relative domiciled in the same household as the father. Because the father's household extended to both residences, the father's no-fault insurer was obligated to pay no-fault benefits.
