Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #314273; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Gleicher, and M.J. Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Exception for Occupants [§3114(4)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion concerning which insurer had priority to pay benefits to plaintiff, an injured passenger, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erroneously ruled that the driver’s no-fault insurer was obligated to pay benefits. The Court of Appeals held that a question of fact existed about plaintiff’s domicile at the time of the accident and, therefore, remanded the case for a determination of plaintiff’s domicile under MCL 500.3114(1).
Sharon Brandywine was a passenger in a car that was involved in an accident. Starr Indemnity insured the driver of the car. Brandywine did not have no-fault coverage, but her mother had a no-fault policy with State Farm. Therefore, if Brandywine was domiciled with her mother at the time of the accident, Brandywine could obtain coverage through the State Farm policy. However, evidence showed that Brandywine occasionally lived in a home formerly occupied by her uncle and, therefore, it was unclear where she was actually “domiciled” under §3114(1) and which insurer had an obligation to pay PIP benefits. Brandywine filed an action against Starr Indemnity, the insurer of the driver, and State Farm, the insurer of Brandywine’s mother, for benefits. Starr Indemnity claimed State Farm was responsible for paying benefits because Brandywine was living with her mother when the accident happened, and asked the trial court to declare that State Farm was highest in priority. The trial court ordered Starr Indemnity to pay benefits, finding that State Farm was not responsible for benefits because Brandywine was domiciled with her mother at the time of the accident.
In reversing the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals examined the term “domiciled” in the No-Fault Act and said its meaning must be “viewed flexibly.” According to the court:
“Among the relevant factors [in determining domicile] are the following: (1) the subjective or declared intent of the person of remaining, either permanently or for an indefinite or unlimited length of time, in the place he contends is his ‘domicile’ or ‘household’; (2) the formality of informality of the relationship between the person and the members of the household; (3) whether the place where the person lives is in the same house, within the same curtilage or upon the same premises; (4) the existence of another place of lodging by the person alleging ‘residence’ or ‘domicile’ in the household.”
The Court of Appeals noted the evidence in this case showed that Brandywine “had two residences” because she “went back and forth” between her mother’s home and her uncle’s home, had a bedroom at both places, and received mail at both locations.
Regarding Starr Indemnity’s claim that it was not liable for benefits, the Court of Appeals pointed out the evidence showed that: 1) Brandywine “historically” had resided with her mother; 2) Brandywine’s mother testified that her daughter was living with her when the accident occurred; 3) Brandywine listed her mother’s address on certain applications for insurance, including Medicaid and social security; and 4) Brandywine used her mother’s address on her voter registration and state ID card.
The Court of Appeals further noted that State Farm, in arguing it was not obligated to pay benefits, relied on Brandywine’s testimony that she was not living with her mother at the time of the accident, and that Brandywine did not list her mother’s address on the application for no-fault benefits. State Farm also cited testimony from Brandywine’s nephew, who said Brandywine was not living with her mother and had decided to make her uncle’s house a permanent residence.
In light of the conflicting evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded:
“If she had begun to reside at the residence on Greenlawn with the intent to make that her permanent residence, the combination of a change in residence with the intent to stay there permanently would be sufficient to change her domicile. …Nevertheless, a reasonable finder of fact could also find from the totality of the evidence that Brandywine was still domiciled with her mother at the time of the accident. … Consequently, the question concern Brandywine’s domicile must be resolved by a trial on the merits.”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for State Farm, vacated the trial court’s judgment, and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.
