Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #264445; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, White, and Fort Hood; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s claim for benefits under the uninsured motorist provision of his father’s automobile insurance policy finding that although plaintiff was obviously related to his father, he did not reside with his father when the injury occurred. The plaintiff in this case sought uninsured motorist benefits under his father’s automobile insurance policy for neck injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. The policy provided that uninsured motorist benefits were available for bodily injury sustained by an insured. An insured is defined in the policy as a “‘relative . . . who resides primarily with’ the insured.”
In affirming the lower court decision, the Court of Appeals commented that plaintiff was obviously related to the insured. It then noted the insurance policy did not define the phrase “resides primarily.” Therefore, it used the generally accepted dictionary definition of those words. According to the court, the dictionary definition of the word “resides” is“to dwell permanently or for some time,” while the dictionary definition of the word “primarily” is “essentially; chiefly.” Applying these meanings to the facts of the case, the court then concluded that although plaintiff stored some of his belongings and received his mail at his father’s home, because he only stayed there overnight a couple of times in the two months before the accident he did not reside in his father’s home. In this regard, the court stated:
“Applying the facts of this case to the above cited definitions, plaintiff did not ‘reside primarily’ at his parents’ home, and therefore, is not a resident relative under the insurance policy. Though plaintiff . . . received mail, stored possessions, and took the occasional meal at his parents’ home in the first few months of 2002, these facts do not establish that plaintiff ‘resided primarily’ with his parents. According to the definition of ‘resided primarily,’ plaintiff would be a resident relative if he chiefly dwelled or lived with his parents, not if he used his parents’ home as a storage locker and post office box.”
