Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 322955; Unpublished
Judges Shapiro, O’Connell, and Gleicher; Unanimous: Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that an injured party was not domiciled with her father within the meaning of MCL 500.3114(1) because the evidence established that she had moved out of her father’s home prior to the accident and no longer intended to be domiciled with her father. Therefore, she was not entitled to PIP benefits, the court ruled.
Jessica Peregord was injured while a passenger in a vehicle owned by her boyfriend’s grandmother. At the time, Peregord had been residing with a friend, and had changed her mailing address and the address on her driver’s license to reflect her friend’s apartment. Prior to moving in with her friend, Peregord resided with her father and, although he kept a room for her at his home, she did not keep any of her belongings at her father’s house. Peregord did not have no-fault insurance and sought PIP benefits through the vehicle owner’s insurer, defendant Allstate. Allstate denied benefits, asserting Peregord was domiciled with her father and that his no-fault insurer, defendant Auto Club Insurance (ACIA), was obligated to pay. ACIA denied Peregord’s claim after concluding that she was not domiciled with her father. Peregord then sought benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility and her claim was assigned to plaintiff Farmers Insurance. Farmers paid PIP benefits and then brought this action against Allstate and ACIA, seeking reimbursement. The only issue before the trial court was Peregord’s domicile at the time of the accident. The trial court granted ACIA’s motion for summary disposition. On appeal, Allstate argued summary disposition was improper because a factual dispute existed regarding Peregord’s domicile, especially since she moved back in with her father one month after the accident.
The Court of Appeals held the evidence supported the conclusion that Peregord intended for her friend’s apartment to be her principal place of residence at the time of the accident. In this regard, the court said:
“At her deposition, Peregord stated that her subjective intent before the accident was to live in her friend’s apartment indefinitely. … Peregord discontinued using her father’s address as her mailing address. She moved all of her possessions out of her father’s home. She also changed her address on her driver’s license. … Given the vast evidence that Peregord intended to remain independent and not retake residency in her childhood bedroom, this single factor cannot tip the scales in favor of finding domicile with Peregord’s father. Allstate contends that a factual dispute remains because Peregord’s father had kept a room at his house for her and because Peregord returned to her father’s home one month after the accident. Allstate further argues that Peregord would have to cede possession of the apartment when her friend returned to the area. Despite the uncertain amount of time that Peregord would be permitted to live in her friend’s apartment, Peregord clearly testified that she intended the apartment to be her ‘principal establishment’ and the place to which, whenever she was absent, she had the intention of returning. … Even after the accident, Peregord did not return immediately to her father’s home. Instead, Peregord tried to continue her independence by moving in with her boyfriend. Accordingly, the evidence supports Peregord’s stated intent that the Woodhaven apartment be her domicile.”
Based on the determination that Peregord was not domiciled with her father under §3114(1), the Court of Appeals concluded that Farmers was not entitled to reimbursement and that summary disposition was properly granted for ACIA.
