Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #257119; Unpublished
Judges Bandstra, White, and Fort Hood; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [3114(1)]
Determination of Domicile [3114(1)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff, finding that plaintiff resided with his mother and was entitled to personal injury protection benefits from his mother’s no-fault insurer. The plaintiff in this case was injured when a car insured by defendant State Farm ran over his foot. Plaintiff’s mother had a no-fault insurance policy with defendant Meemic Insurance Co. Plaintiff sued both insurers for payment of personal injury protection benefits. Defendants moved for summary disposition. Meemic argued that it was not responsible for plaintiff’s benefits because he did not reside with his mother. State Farm argued to the contrary. The Court of Appeals found that plaintiff did reside with his mother and affirmed. In so holding, the court concluded that where plaintiff’s mail was delivered to his mother’s house, he kept most of his clothing at his mother’s house, he listed her address on his medical records, he stated an intent to reside with his mother, he had no other place he called home, and he frequently spent the weekends at her house, plaintiff was domiciled at his mother’s home. In this regard, the court stated:
“[I]n this case, the trial court found: (1) plaintiff received mail at his mother’s house; (2) other than a bag of clothing, all of plaintiff’s personal possessions remained at his mother’s house; (3) plaintiff listed his mother’s address on his medical records; (4) plaintiff intended on residing with his mother; and (5) plaintiff did not have any other place he could call his domicile.
In this case, plaintiff would frequently return to his mother’s house on the weekends, did not have any other place he could call his domicile, and intended to live with his mother again. Based on the facts available, . . . the trial court properly determined that plaintiff was domiciled with his mother and is entitled to personal injury protection benefits under her no-fault policy.”
The court then determined that plaintiff was properly awarded attorney fees from both defendants because their denial was unreasonable. In so finding, the court noted there was no question plaintiff was entitled to no-fault benefits, the only question was which insurer would be found liable. In this regard, the court explained:
“This Court has repeatedly held that ‘when the only question is which of two insurers will pay, it is unreasonable for an insurer to refuse payment of benefits.’ . . . In this case, plaintiff was undoubtedly entitled to no-fault benefits. Regardless of the dispute as to where plaintiff was domiciled, the only question that remained was which of the two defendant insurance companies was responsible for the payments. Therefore, the trial court’s finding that defendants acted unreasonably in denying plaintiff’s claims was not clearly erroneous.”
