Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 64691; Published
Judges Beasley, R.B. Burns, and Megargle; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 135 Mich App 588; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Separated and Divorced Spouses [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion deals with an issue of priority of payments where an injured accident victim was separated and living apart from her estranged husband at the time of the accident. Plaintiff wife was a passenger in an automobile owned by her mother and insured by Nationwide. Plaintiff neither owned a car nor did she have a policy of insurance. She was separated from her husband and had filed a complaint for divorce. Her husband was insured by defendant DAIIE. Plaintiff was living with her mother at the time of the accident. DAIIE paid plaintiff her no-fault benefits but brought suit against Nationwide seeking 50% reimbursement under §3115(2) claiming it was in the same order of priority as Nationwide.
The Court of Appeals rejected DAIIE's argument and held that under §3114(1), DAIIE (the husband's insurer) was in the first order of priority. The Court stated:
"In our view, the correct interpretation of the statute establishes priority in the order that they appear in the policy, namely, the named insured, the spouse of the named insured, if any, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household. Thus, as between the carrier insuring plaintiffs spouse and the carrier insuring plaintiffs mother, the carrier insuring plaintiff's spouse was responsible...."
This holding is an extension of three other cases involving estranged spouses living apart from the named insured at the time of the accident. All three cases place the burden of priority on the policy of the named insured. See Citizens Mutual v Community Services (item number 80), Bierbusse v Farmers Insurance (item number 90) and Smith v Auto-Owners (item number 618).
