Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 115664; Published
Judges Griffin, Shepherd, and Doctoroff; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 185 Mich App 249; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Equal Priority Situations [§3114(6)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Griffin dealing with a priority dispute, the court held that the terms "the named insured" and "the person named in the policy" as used in §3114(1) are synonymous terms. Therefore, a child residing with parents who have several insurance policies and who is listed as a driver under one of the policies, is not, by that designation, a named insured. Therefore, all of the policies issued to the parents are in the same line of priority and must share the obligation for paying no-fault benefits on a pro rata basis. The policy that lists the son as a driver has no greater priority than the other policies issued to the parents. The court relied on the previous decision in Dairyland v Auto Owners (Item No. 619) and Citizens Mutual v Community Services (Item No 80) and stated: "We conclude that for purposes of determining priority under §3114(1) [the son] is not a 'person named in the policy' issued by defendant Hastings Mutual. We are persuaded that to hold otherwise would be to expand the insurer's exposure to a point beyond justifiable limits."
