Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325045; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, Cavanagh, and Fort Hood; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits under his mother’s no-fault policy with defendant, the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition should not have been granted to defendant because there was conflicting evidence about whether plaintiff was domiciled with his mother at the time of the accident, within the meaning of MCL 500.3114(1).
Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident and brought this action for PIP benefits under his mother’s no-fault policy with defendant Frankenmuth Mutual. Plaintiff claimed that he was domiciled in his mother’s household at the time of the accident. Plaintiff VHS of Michigan, which treated plaintiff’s accident-related injuries, intervened to recover payment for the services it had provided. Frankenmuth moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff was domiciled in Canton, Michigan, and not with his mother in Westland, Michigan, at the time of the accident. Plaintiff did not respond to the summary motion, but VHS did respond, submitting evidence that plaintiff had moved from the Canton address prior to the accident and was domiciled with his mother in Westland when the accident occurred. The trial court granted Frankenmuth’s motion for summary disposition, holding there was no dispute that plaintiff lived in Canton, and not Westland, on the date of the accident, and therefore he was not entitled to PIP benefits.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding there was conflicting evidence about plaintiff’s domicile and, therefore, summary disposition was improper. The Court described the conflicting evidence as follows:
“Defendant argued, and the trial court agreed, that there was no question of fact regarding plaintiff’s domicile in Canton because his previous state identification card (state ID), the accident report, and court records for plaintiff’s criminal case all listed the Canton address at or near the time of the accident. Defendant argues that the only documentary proof offered in support of plaintiff’s domicile in Westland was a state ID card plaintiff obtained after the accident. VHS, however, submitted evidence that supported a finding that plaintiff had in fact relocated to Westland with his mother before the accident. … Plaintiff and his mother both submitted affidavits averring that plaintiff was residing in his mother’s home in Westland on the date of the accident. VHS also provided documentation that the Canton house was foreclosed and purchased by JP Morgan Chase Bank … well before this accident.”
Based on this conflicting evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding plaintiff’s domicile at the time of the accident and, therefore, summary disposition was improper.
In addition to reversing summary disposition for Frankenmuth, the Court of Appeals denied VHS’s claim that it was also entitled to summary disposition, again pointing to the conflicting evidence.
The Court of Appeals then addressed Frankenmuth’s argument that plaintiff’s failure to respond to its summary disposition motion operated as a waiver of plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits, precluding VHS from recovering benefits. Addressing this argument, the Court cited Chiropractors Rehab Group, PC v State Farm Mutual Auto Ins Co, ___ Mich App ____ (2015), finding this decision supported VHS’s right to pursue a claim for PIP benefits, regardless of plaintiff’s diligence. The Court continued its analysis of this issue by further finding that Frankenmuth’s reliance on Moody v Home Owners Ins Co, 304 Mich App 415 (2014), was misplaced because Moody did not address a provider’s right to bring a claim “when an insured fails to undertake appropriate legal action to secure his own right to benefits.”
Based on the foregoing, and on MCR 2.116, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff’s failure to respond to Frankenmuth’s summary disposition motion did not preclude VHS’s recovery of benefits, for which plaintiff was eligible.
