Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #318307; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Borrello, and Gleicher; 2-1 (Judge O’Connell dissenting); Non-unanimous;
Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
Link to Dissent
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam Opinion (with Judge O’Connell dissenting), the Court of Appeals held that the adult stepdaughter of the insured remained a “relative” of the insured after her mother died because when properly construed, the policy’s definition of “relative” includes “stepchildren,” and because “the common use and understanding of the term ‘stepchildren’ encompasses a relationship that persists even after the biological parent’s death.” Therefore, the court held that plaintiff was entitled to recover no-fault benefits as a resident relative.
Plaintiff’s mother was married to defendant’s insured, Melvin Jordan. When plaintiff’s mother passed away, plaintiff continued to live with her stepfather (the insured). Plaintiff was in an auto accident and sought no-fault benefits under her stepfather’s no-fault policy with defendant Nationwide, on the basis that she was a “resident relative.” Nationwide denied the claim, asserting that plaintiff was no longer a relative of its insured because her mother had died. Plaintiff brought this action seeking benefits. The trial court denied Nationwide’s motion for summary disposition, finding the policy language was ambiguous and that Nationwide was liable for benefits based on the doctrine of contra proferentem. Nationwide filed an interlocutory appeal.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was entitled to coverage. In so ruling, the court examined the language of the policy, which said:
“’RELATIVE’ means one who regularly lives in your household and who is related to you by blood, marriage or adoption (including a ward or foster child). A relative may live temporarily outside your household. In the No-Fault coverage, a relative includes spouse. [Bold in original.]”
Based on this policy language and appellate case precedent, the Court of Appeals found that plaintiff was a relative of the insured (her stepfather). The court said:
“The insurance policy language at issue affords first-party no-fault coverage to ‘relatives’ residing with the insured. A ‘relative’ includes a person related to the insured ‘by blood, marriage or adoption[.]’ … We conclude that the common understanding of the term ‘related by marriage’ incorporates a stepparent relationship that continues even after the death of the biological parent, and affirm on that basis. … Several other courts … have analyzed whether the same or strikingly similar insurance policy language subsumes a stepparent relationship even when the biological parent is no longer present. Virtually all of them have concluded that it does. Thus, we find the term ‘related . . . by marriage’ unambiguous and susceptible of a common understanding as inclusive of a stepparent relationship that endures the death of the biological parent.”
In so holding, the Court of Appeals rejected Nationwide’s argument that the death of plaintiff’s mother negated her status as a relative. The court held that In re Combs Estate, 257 Mich App 622 (2003), a wrongful death action, did not apply to this case. The court reasoned:
“The words used — ‘related by marriage’ [as used in the policy] — are far broader [than in the wrongful death statute]. By common understanding, that phrase envisages an insured’s stepchildren, regardless of whether the biological parent survives. … Because the commonly understood meaning of ‘related by marriage’ includes children of a deceased spouse, Combs is inapplicable.”
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals said:
“Given that the common use and understanding of the term ‘stepchildren’ encompasses a relationship that persists even after the biological parent’s death, the policy affords coverage when a stepchild’s domicile remains with the named insured, as here.”
Judge O’Connell, in a separate dissent, called the majority’s analysis “legally unsound” and said Michigan law is clear that “a marriage terminates on death of a spouse” and “the surviving spouse is no longer related to the other spouse’s children.”
