Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 324744; Published
Judges Murray, Stephens, and Riordan; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff, who was a cousin by marriage to the no-fault policyholder and resided with the policyholder at the time of the accident, was not entitled to PIP benefits, because a cousin by marriage relationship does not satisfy the definition of “relative” in MCL 500.3114(1).
Plaintiff was struck by a hit-and-run driver while walking. She resided with, and was a cousin by marriage to, Tamekiah Gordon, who had a no-fault policy with defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange. For purposes of no-fault coverage, it was undisputed that plaintiff and Gordon were not married, not related by blood, and not related by adoption at the time of the accident. Rather, plaintiff claimed she was a cousin by marriage to Gordon, because plaintiff’s paternal aunt was married to Gordon’s paternal uncle.
Farmers denied plaintiff PIP benefits under Gordon’s policy. Plaintiff filed suit, claiming she was entitled to benefits because she was a relative under §3114(1). Gordon’s policy defined family member as: “… a person related to you [the named insured] by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household.” The policy further provided: “We [Farmers] agree to pay in accordance with the [No-Fault Act] the following benefits to or for an insured person. …Insured person as used in this part means: you or any family member.” The trial court denied Farmers’ motion for summary disposition and held that plaintiff was entitled to benefits.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that plaintiff neither qualified as a relative under §3114(1), nor as a family member under the terms of the policy.
In so holding, the Court of Appeals said the trial court improperly extended the meaning of “relative by marriage” too far, by finding that marriage creates affinity relationships not just between a spouse and the blood relatives of the other spouse, but also between the blood relatives of one spouse and the blood relatives of the other spouse.
According to the Court, the trial court’s interpretation of §3114(1) was incorrect under the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision and definition of affinity in People v Zajaczkowski, 493 Mich 6 (2012), and that decision’s reliance on Bliss v Tyler, 149 Mich 601 (1907). In Zajaczkowski, the Supreme Court, quoting Bliss, had defined affinity as:
“the relation existing in consequence of marriage between each of the married persons and the blood relatives of the other, and the degrees of affinity are computed in the same way as those of consanguinity or kindred. A husband is related, by affinity, to all the blood relatives of his wife, and the wife is related, by affinity, to all the blood relatives of the husband.”
Although Zajaczkowski did not involve the No-Fault Act, the Court of Appeals said the decision’s approval of the Bliss definition of affinity demonstrated that this definition is still the most commonly understood meaning of the term. In light of this, the Court said the meaning of relative in the context of §3114(1) is a person related “by marriage, consanguinity, or adoption.”
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff’s relationship with Gordon did not fall within the common understanding of “relative by affinity” under Michigan law and, therefore, she was not entitled to PIP benefits.
The Court of Appeals further held that plaintiff was not a family member of Gordon’s, as that term was defined in the policy, and that the trial court improperly construed the term in a manner that included plaintiff’s relationship with Gordon. The Court concluded:
“Because established Michigan law does not recognize the purported ‘cousins by marriage’ relationship between [the claimant] and Gordon, the trial court erred in holding that [the claimant] was Gordon’s ‘relative’ and thereby entitled to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114(1) and the no-fault policy issued by [Farmers].”
