Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-2569; Published
Judges Gillis, M. J. Kaufman, and D. E. Holbrook; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 84 Mich App 34; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Separated and Divorced Spouses [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a case dealing with §3114(1) this panel of the Court of Appeals unanimously held that when a couple is separated pending divorce and one spouse is the named insured on a no-fault policy, the other spouse and the children of the named insured are covered by the no-fault policy even though they are domiciled in separate households until the divorce is finalized. In so holding, the Court of Appeals refused to follow the hard and fast rule of Citizens Mutual v Community Services (item number 80) which concluded that any relative other than an estranged spouse must be domiciled with the named insured in order to be covered under the no-fault policy. The Court of Appeals reasoned that when the policy was written in this case, the insurance company calculated its premiums on the basis of the named insured, his wife, and their children. "To allow Defendant to escape liability by concluding that the daughter was not within the zone of risk contemplated by the Defendant is absurd and would create a windfall in favor of the Defendant."
In what could be important language regarding statutory intent and construction, the Court noted that "the no-fault automobile statute is remedial in nature, attempting to correct the deficiencies found in the old tort system. Remedial statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the persons intending to be benefited by the statute."
