Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 106554 and 108158; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, Gillis, and Sullivan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Misrepresentation / Fraud as a Basis to Rescind Coverage [§3113]
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
Fraud/Misrepresentation
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion deals with a very complicated fact situation involving the determination of plaintiff’s "domicile" for purposes of establishing no-fault priorities under §3114(1). The plaintiff was the estranged wife of an immigrant residing in Canada. Shortly before the accident, plaintiff separated from her husband and was in the process of moving into her own apartment. The court held that the insurance company for plaintiff’s estranged husband was the insurer with highest priority. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected the argument that the husband's insurer should be absolved from liability because the marriage was a sham and entered into for the fraudulent purposes of avoiding American immigration laws. Without squarely deciding whether or not this would be a legitimate defense, the court found that the factual allegations were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
In addition, the court rejected the argument of the husband's insurer that the husband materially misrepresented his marital status at the time he purchased the policy, therefore, releasing the insurer from any obligation to pay no-fault benefits to the estranged wife. The court stated:
"Even assuming that [plaintiffs husband] committed fraud, we do not believe that this precludes recovery by plaintiff, an innocent party."
