Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 55895; Published
Judges Walsh, Cynar, and Hood; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Hood
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:123 Mich App 675; 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:
The central question in this unanimous Opinion by Judge Hood was whether or not the plaintiff, a 20-year-old unmarried male, was legally considered "domiciled" in the home of his mother at the time of an automobile accident, thus making his mother's no-fault policy the proper policy under which no-fault benefits should be claimed pursuant to §3114(1). The young man in this case was actually living in his grandfather's trailer at the time of the accident and had been so residing for approximately six months. In ruling that the young man was not domiciled in the home of his mother, the Court stated:
"We conclude the facts in this case fully support the trial court's finding that Thomas Sterly was not domiciled in the same household with his mother for the purpose of determining coverage under her policy. At the time of the accident, he had not lived with his mother for six months and was not dependent upon her for support, liked living in his grandfather's trailer and expected to continue to do so indefinitely and had no precise plans or expectations of returning to his mother's home. Storage of some of his belongings at his mother's home, use of such home as a mailing address, and the knowledge that he could and would return to live with her if forced to do so by adverse circumstances, are insufficient to constitute him a member of his mother's household."
The Court then went on to reject the second contention that the young man was covered under his mother's policy by virtue of the fact that his sister, who also lived in the grandfather's trailer, was identified in the mother's policy with a code designation as being the principal driver of one of the vehicles insured under the mother's policy. It was argued that this made the sister a person "named in the policy" which was issued to the mother, thereby making that policy the appropriate source of recovery under §3114(1). There was no dispute that the "named insured" was the young man's mother. In rejecting this argument, the Court held that there was no meaningful distinction between the phrase "named insured" and the phrase "the person named in the policy." They are one and the same. Therefore, because the sister was not the "named insured," the young man was not residing with a person who was a named insured under the mother's policy at the time of the accident.
