Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 323394; Unpublished
Judges Servitto, Wilder, and Boonstra; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Coverage
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits under a no-fault policy issued to her parents, because the policy language only provided coverage to relatives who resided with the policyholder and the plaintiff admitted that she did not reside with her parents.
Plaintiff in this case was injured while a passenger in a taxi that was in an accident with a pickup truck. The pickup’s driver fled the scene. Plaintiff did not have a no-fault policy, and claimed benefits under a policy that Auto-Owners issued to her parents, who were listed as the named insureds. Plaintiff was not a named insured. The UM/UIM provisions in the policy extended coverage to a “relative” who did not own a vehicle. Relative was defined as: “a person who resides with you and who is related to you by blood, marriage or adoption.” Auto-Owners denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits, asserting that plaintiff did not reside with her parents at the time of the accident. Plaintiff filed this action and, during discovery, acknowledged that she resided with her fiancé and not her parents at the time of the accident. At a later deposition, plaintiff stated that, at the time of the accident, she was “transitioning out of” her parents’ home and into her fiancé’s home, and she lived at her parents’ home two to three nights a week. Auto-Owners moved for partial summary disposition, asserting that plaintiff was not a “relative” under the policy. The trial court denied Auto-Owners’ motion, finding that a question of fact existed as to plaintiff’s place of residence on the date of the accident.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits because she was not a “relative” under the language of the policy, since she admitted that she was not residing with her parents at the time of the accident.
In this regard, the Court of Appeals noted that plaintiff’s acknowledgment was a judicial admission under MCR 2.312(D) and said:
“By responding ‘[a]dmit’ to the fact that on the date of the accident she resided at her fiancé’s address, and that she did not reside at her parents’ address, she formally conceded that she resided with her fiancé at the time of the accident and not with her parents, thereby withdrawing the fact of her place of residence as an issue in the case and dispensing with the need for Auto-Owners to prove that fact. … Because her answers were judicial admissions, they were binding, and the trial court was not permitted to disregard them unless plaintiff formally withdrew or amended her answers after filing a motion.”
Regarding plaintiff’s argument that, despite her admission, her later deposition testimony created a material dispute about her residence, the Court of Appeals said:
“Plaintiff refers this Court to our Supreme Court’s holding in Grange Ins Co v Lawrence, 494 Mich 475 … (2013), which determined that it is permissible for a person to have more than one residence. Additionally, plaintiff relies on MCR 2.116(G)(5) to support her contention that the trial court properly considered both her deposition testimony and her responses to plaintiff’s requests for admission to determine whether a question of fact about plaintiff’s place of residence existed. … However, while MCR 2.116(G)(5) requires consideration of affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence submitted or filed in the action when ruling on a summary disposition motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court rule does not defeat the effect of a judicial admission under MCR 2.312. … Moreover, plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that judicial admissions are in fact subject to contradiction by deposition testimony. …MCR 2.312 applies to conclusively establish admitted facts. Because judicial admissions are not subject to counter-proof, the trial court incorrectly considered plaintiff’s additional deposition testimony.”
Therefore, given plaintiff’s admission regarding her residence, and her failure to seek to withdraw or amend that admission, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was no dispute that she was not a “relative” under the policy.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in denying Auto-Owners’ motion for summary disposition.
