Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 63505; Published
Judges Danhof, Gillis, and Deming; 2-1 Opinion; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 123 Mich App 585; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Separated and Divorced Spouses [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 per curiam Opinion (Judge Danhof dissenting), the Court of Appeals held that under §3114(1), no-fault benefits were recoverable on behalf of a named insured's stepchild, where the child was domiciled with the named insured and his wife (the child's natural mother) during the period when the parties were living together, but where, at the time the injury occurred, the child was domiciled in a separate household with her natural mother, the named insured's estranged spouse. The holding in this case is an extension of the ruling in Bierbusse v Farmers Insurance Group (item number 90) which ruled that benefits were available to the natural daughter of the named insured where, at the time of the accident, the daughter was domiciled in a separate household with the estranged spouse of the named insured.
In reaching its conclusion, the majority pointed out that §3114(1) extends coverage to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household. The Court stated that as in Bierbusse, the insurer calculated its premium on the basis of the named insured and the family unit with which he was residing at the time the policy was issued, i.e., the named insured, the spouse, and the spouse's natural children. Therefore, to extend coverage in this case does not apply coverage to a risk that was not undertaken by the insurer at the time the policy was issued and the premium calculated.
