Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #285038; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Talbot, and Shapiro; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature of Survivor's Loss Benefits [3108(1)]
Entitlement to Benefits for Out of State Accidents [3111]
Disqualification for Nonresidents [3113(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of personal injury protection benefits under MCL 500.3111 and survivor’s loss benefits under MCL 500.3108 where the evidence showed that plaintiff’s husband was domiciled in Michigan even though he was working in Arkansas at the time of his fatal motor vehicle accident.
The action in this case arose after defendant, plaintiff’s no-fault insurer, denied her request under §3111 and §3108 for survivor loss benefits regarding her husband’s death that occurred in a fatal motor vehicle accident in Arkansas. Defendant based its refusal on its determination that the decedent was domiciled out-of-state under MCL 500.3113(c).
At the time of the fatal accident, the decedent was working as a microbiologist for the state of Arkansas and had a part-time position with the University of Arkansas. He could not obtain comparable work in Michigan. The decedent took few personal items with him when he moved from Michigan to Arkansas. He rented a room from a friend and bought, registered, and insured a vehicle in Arkansas. He also obtained an Arkansas license and opened a bank account. However, plaintiff and the decedent were married and the decedent owned a house in Michigan in which plaintiff lived. The decedent returned to Michigan monthly to spend time with plaintiff and their child and would spend holidays and vacations in Michigan. The decedent used his Michigan address as his permanent address and received his mail at that address. He paid his state and federal income taxes as a resident of Michigan, and had his paychecks automatically deposited into the bank account he and his wife had in Michigan. In addition, he had all of his doctor, dentist, and eye appointments in Michigan.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that, “every man must have a domicile somewhere,” and “he can have but one.” Domicile, the court further noted, is where a person intends to make his home and is a question of fact. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the court recognized that when the decedent moved to Arkansas, he did not intend to relinquish his domicile in Michigan, where his family lived. In addition, the decedent showed no intent to permanently reside in Arkansas by purchasing real estate or even renting an apartment. Based upon these facts, the court concluded that the decedent intended to eventually return to Michigan. In so deciding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Viewing the totality of the facts in this case demonstrates that Han did not relinquish the domicile he established over the ten year period he shared a home with plaintiff in Michigan. Notably, the residence in Michigan was Han’s own house, which was inhabited by his immediate family. Han’s life in Arkansas was temporary, biding time until he could obtain an adequately paying job in Michigan. Han evidenced no intent to establish himself as a permanent resident of Arkansas, having never acquired real estate or even rented an apartment in that state. The evidence indicates that Han did not merely hope but intended to return to his Michigan home.”
