Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 326672; Unpublished
Judges Wilder, Murphy and O’Connell; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving whether plaintiff, an injured pedestrian, was domiciled with his brother within the meaning of MCL 500.3114(1), the Court of Appeals held that summary disposition was properly granted to plaintiff, the assigned-claims insurer and various intervening medical providers, because plaintiff resided with his brother in Michigan at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff moved to Michigan from Alabama in May 2012. Intending to move into the home of his brother, Abdul Karim Almashraqi, plaintiff changed his social security and other information to Abdul’s address. Before moving, Abdul found a possible house for Rashad’s family to rent and paid one month’s rent/deposit on it. Plaintiff’s wife did not like the rental house and so plaintiff moved in with Abdul until he could find his family another house, while plaintiff’s wife stayed at the rental house because Abdul’s house was too crowded. Plaintiff kept some of his belongings at Abdul’s house and stored the rest at the rental house. Plaintiff was hit by a car on June 14, 2012. Plaintiff’s vehicle was registered in Alabama. Although Abdul’s no-fault policy with defendant Auto Club provided coverage to resident relatives, Auto Club denied coverage. Plaintiff filed this action for PIP benefits. Citizens Insurance, which was the insurer assigned to handle the claim under the Assigned Claims Plan, moved for summary disposition, asserting that Auto Club was a higher priority insurer because plaintiff was domiciled with Abdul at the time of the accident. Auto Club argued, however, that plaintiff was not domiciled with Abdul because he did not intend to stay in the home indefinitely and that plaintiff resided at the rental house. The trial court ruled that plaintiff was domiciled with Abdul and Auto Club was liable for no-fault benefits. On appeal, Auto Club claimed the trial court improperly held that plaintiff was domiciled with Abdul for two reasons: 1) he lived in the rental house and 2) he did not intend to permanently live with Abdul.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Auto Club, finding that plaintiff was domiciled with Abdul and entitled to no-fault benefits as a resident relative under §3114(1).
In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals noted the deposition testimony did not support Auto Club’s claim that plaintiff lived at the rental house. According to the Court, there was no evidence that plaintiff slept at the rental house, and that plaintiff changed his mailing to address to Abdul’s house and he kept many of his personal belongings there.
As for Auto Club’s argument that plaintiff was not domiciled with Abdul because he did not intend to permanently reside with him, the Court of Appeals said that pursuant to Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exchange, 404 Mich 477 (1979), a domicile is a place where a person intends to reside “either permanently or for an indefinite or unlimited length of time ….” Relying on Workman, the Court said that, when plaintiff moved to Michigan, he intended to stay either at the rental house or with Abdul, and because plaintiff’s wife found the rental house unsuitable, plaintiff intended to stay with Abdul indefinitely until he could find another house.
Affirming summary disposition for plaintiff, Citizens Insurance and the intervening medical providers, the Court of Appeals concluded:
“[Plaintiff] must have a domicile somewhere. … [Plaintiff] was not domiciled in Alabama, and he did not live or intend to live in the rental house. Applying the Workman factors in their entirety, [plaintiff] intended to live at Abdul Karim’s house for an indefinite length of time while he was searching for another residence. He had a formal relationship with his brother. And [plaintiff] did not have another place of lodging — he had left Alabama and he was not, in fact, living in the rental house. We conclude that the trial court did not err when it determined that [plaintiff] was domiciled with Abdul Karim.”
