Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 54857; Published
Judges Danhof, Cavanagh, and Freeman; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 110 Mich App 218; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Exception to General Priority for Non-Occupants [§3115(1)]
Obligations of Admitted Insurers to Pay PIP Benefits on Behalf of Nonresidents Injured in Michigan [§3163(1)]
Rights and Immunities Applicable to Nonresident Claimants and Foreign Insurers [§3163(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Chief Judge Danhof, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the previous holding of the Court of Appeals in Mills v Auto-Owners (item number 363) and Kill v Nationwide (item number 419) regarding the application of the foreign insurer provisions of §3163 of the statute. The Court held in this case that an out-of-state motorcyclist who sustained injury in Michigan when struck by a Michigan insured vehicle, was required to collect his no-fault benefits from the insurer of the Michigan motor vehicle involved in the accident pursuant to §3115(1) of the Act. The out-of-state insurance company which wrote a policy insuring plaintiff’s father (who resided in the same household as plaintiff) was not required to pay no-fault benefits under §3163 of the statute because the accident did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle by an out-of-state resident, as this panel ruled was necessary in order or to apply. The panels in Mills and Kill ruled that it was sufficient if the out-of-state resident sustained injury in Michigan in an accident involving a motor vehicle. It was not necessary that the out-of-state resident be the one that was actually using or operating the motor vehicle. As the Court stated, "In the instant case, [plaintiff’s] accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle, but did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle by an out-of-state resident [Plaintiff] was the out-of-state resident involved and he was using a motorcycle." This case also contains a discussion of factors to be used in determining domicile for purposes of priorities under §3114(1). The Supreme Court's analysis in Workmen v DAIIE (item number 143) was applied by the Court.
