Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #303031; Published
Judges Beckering, Owens, and Ronayne Krause; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion
On September 19, 2012, the Supreme Court GRANTED Leave to Appeal this decision; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [3114(1)]
Determination of Domicile [3114(1)]
Separated and Divorced Spouses [3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court determination that two separate auto no-fault insurers for the divorced parents of a minor child, who died as a result of motor vehicle accident, were obligated under MCL 500.3114(1) to provide and equally share the PIP benefit payments where the divorced parents shared joint legal custody of the minor child.
In this case, Farm Bureau insured the mother of the minor child who died in the accident, and Granger Insurance insured the father of the minor child. The parents were divorced, and pursuant to the judgment of divorce, the parents shared joint legal custody, but the mother had primary physical custody.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the undisputed circumstances in the instant case established that the child was domiciled in the homes of both parents based upon analysis of the factors set forth in the cases of Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477 (1979) and Dairyland Ins Co v Auto Owners Ins Co, 123 Mich App 675 (1983). The Court of Appeals analyzed the various factors outlined in those two cases for determination of the issue of domicile under the provisions of MCL 500.3114(1), which states that personal protection insurance policy applies to the named insured, the insured spouse, and “a relative of either domiciled in the same household.” The court determined that the child lived in both houses, had possessions in both homes, had a room in both homes, and was dependent on both parents for support. The court further held that the custody order of the court did not change the fact that the child actually resided with both parents, which is the relevant inquiry under the No-fault Act. The court further pointed out that the child saw her father almost every day and stayed with him every other weekend, and there was a flexible parenting agreement that also allowed for the child to stay with her father during the summer on vacation.
The court stated that the provisions of MCL 500.3114(1) do not impose a requirement that coverage extend only to a relative whose “principle residence” is with the insured. Accordingly, the trial court determination that the PIP benefits should be shared equally between the two insurers was affirmed.
