Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #261225; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Smolenski, and Talbot; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court determination that plaintiff was domiciled with his parents and, therefore, entitled to no-fault PIP insurance benefits under the priority provisions of MCL 500.3114(1) of the No-Fault Act.
Plaintiff was a 24-year-old college student living in an apartment in Toledo, Ohio where he worked and attended the University of Toledo part-time. In his testimony, he indicated he had no plans to move back to his parents’ home, but also stated he considered his parents’ home to be his main residence. His parents maintained a fully furnished bedroom for him at their home, where he also stored clothing and all kinds of other things. Plaintiff was permitted to come and go freely at his parents’ home and returned there for weekends, holidays, and for a period of months after his injury. He maintained a Michigan driver’s license with his parents’ address and used that address for his employment records, college registration, tax records, and bank statements. Further, he still relied upon his parents for payments of his tuition, car payments, and insurance payments. Likewise, his mother was a joint holder on all three of his bank accounts and managed those accounts on his behalf.
The court held that “taken as a whole” these factors strongly favor the determination that plaintiff was still domiciled at his parents’ home at the time of the accident.
The priority provisions of §3114(1) state a PIP policy is required to provide coverage to the person named in the policy, the named person’s spouse, and “a relative of either domiciled in the same household.” Although the determination of domicile is generally a question of fact, the court stated here, the underlying facts are not in dispute. Therefore, domicile is a question of law for the court. The court pointed out that under Goldstein v Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 218 Mich App 105 (1996), several relevant factors are used to determine whether a person is domiciled in the same household as the insured. Those factors include: (1) the subjective or declared intent of the claimant, (2) the formality of the relationship between the claimant and the members of the household, (3) whether the place where the claimant lives is in the same house, within the same curtilage, or upon the same premises as the insured, and (4) the existence of another place of lodging for the person alleging domicile.
The court also noted that when considering whether a child is domiciled with the child’s parents, other relevant indicia include: (1) whether the child continues to use the parents’ home as the child’s mailing address, (2) whether the child maintains some possessions with the parents, (3) whether the child uses the parents’ address on the child’s driver’s license or other documents, (4) whether a room is maintained for the child at the parents’ home, and (5) whether the child is dependent upon the parents for support. The court noted the deposition testimony and plaintiff’s use of his parents’ address for his most important documents and mail, clearly evince a belief his permanent residence was with his parents.
The Court of Appeals also upheld plaintiff’s claim for an attorney fee under MCL 500.3148(1). The court noted that where benefits are not paid within the statutory period [30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof under MCL 500.3142(2)], then a “rebuttable presumption of unreasonable refusal or undue delay arises such that the insurer has the burden to justify the refusal or delay.” Bloemsma v Auto Club Insurance Association, 174 Mich App 692 (1989).
