Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77689; Published
Judges Kelly, MacKenzie, and Kaufman; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 146 Mich App 475; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Recoupment Between Equal Priority Insurers [§3115(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam opinion by Judge Kelly, the Court of Appeals specifically took issue with and held contrary to the earlier opinion in Martin v DAIIE (Item No. 704). The question presented was whether §3114(1) of the act creates an order of priority between no-fault policies covering a spouse and those policies covering a relative domiciled with a named insured. In the Martin case, the court held that the language of §3114(1} establishes priority between no-fault policies in the order they appear in the statute, namely, the named insured first, the spouse of the named insured second, and third, a relative of either domiciled in the same household.
In rejecting the Martin decision, Judge Kelly wrote that §3114(1) is clear and unambiguous. The language does not create any order of priority between policies except in the last sentence of §3114(1). The court stated, "A fair reading of the plain and unambiguous language of these first two portions of the statute [§3114(1)] convinces us that the Legislature did nothing more than create rights of personal injury protection insurance for three categories of individuals: Persons named in the policy, spouses and relatives domiciled in the same household.... We think that the words... can only be read as an attempt to delineate the categories of persons entitled to personal injury protection benefits under a Michigan no-fault policy and not as an attempt to establish priority of coverage among multiple insurers. We hold that where an injured person is covered under one personal injury protection policy naming as the insured that person's spouse and under another policy naming as the insured a relative with whom that person is domiciled, both insurers are liable for personal injury protection benefits and recoupment is available under §3115(2)."
In light of the fact that this decision conflicts squarely with the Martin case, the court certified the case for "conflicts resolution" pursuant to Administrative Order 1984-2,418 Mich lxxxii (1984).
