Tienda v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co., Docket No. 306050.

• Decision Date: 23 April 2013
• Docket Number: Docket No. 306050.
• Citation: 300 Mich.App. 605,834 N.W.2d 908
• Parties: TIENDA v. INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

300 Mich.App. 605

834 N.W.2d 908

TIENDA

v.INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

Docket No. 306050.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 5, 2013, at Lansing.

Decided April 23, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

Koning & Jilek, P.C., Portage (by James H. Koning and Jonathan N. Jilek), for Gerardo Lorenzo Tienda and Silvia Lopez Gomez.

Garan Lucow Miller, P.C., Detroit (by Daniel S. Saylor), for Integon National Insurance Company.

Law Offices of Ronald M. Sangster PLLC, Troy (by Ronald M. Sangster, Jr.), for Titan Insurance Company.

Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and SAAD and HOEKSTRA, JJ.

SAAD, J.

Defendant Integon National Insurance Company appeals the trial court's order denying its motion for summary disposition and granting summary disposition in favor of intervening defendant Titan Insurance Company. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand.

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

The answer to the question of which insurer, Integon or Titan, is responsible for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits arising out of a Michigan automobile accident depends on where the insured, Salvador Lorenzo, resided at the time of the accident. Because of its peculiar facts, this case raises a question of first impression because Lorenzo, an itinerant agricultural worker, did not have a “permanent” residence in any state, but lived, worked, and resided in three different states where he picked fruit on a seasonal basis. At the time of the accident, Lorenzo lived and worked in Michigan, had all his possessions with him in Michigan, and had no other residence or place he looked to or could be regarded as his home. Accordingly, for purposes of the no-fault act, Lorenzo was a resident of Michigan, and neither his out-of-state policy with Integon nor Integon's choice to also do business in Michigan makes Integon liable for plaintiffs' no-fault benefits. Instead, and contrary to the trial court's ruling, Titan is the insurer responsible for the payment of plaintiffs' PIP benefits as the carrier assigned by the Assigned Claims Facility.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

This case arises out of an auto accident that occurred July 29, 2009, on I–196 in Allegan County. Plaintiffs, Gerardo Tienda and Sylvia Gomez, were passengers in a Ford Expedition owned by Tienda's uncle, Lorenzo. When the accident occurred, Lorenzo was also riding in the vehicle and Heriberto Fernandez Castro was driving. Tienda, Gomez, Lorenzo, and Castro are migrant farm workers who travel from state to state to harvest fruit. From October 2008 until May 2009, the four worked in Florida where they picked strawberries and then pulled the strawberry plants after the harvest. From May 2009 until early July, the four lived together on or near a farm in North Carolina where they harvested blueberries. Around July 4, 2009, Lorenzo drove Tienda, Gomez, and Castro in his Expedition to Michigan, they rented an apartment together in Grand Rapids, and drove together each day to a farm in Allegan County to harvest blueberries. Plaintiffs and Lorenzo testified that, before the accident, they traveled to the same states and performed the same work for many years. Though the four generally lived in housing provided to migrant workers for the harvest season, they found the Grand Rapids apartment after inquiring about available housing at a Mexican grocery store. It appears the accident occurred after work one day when the four were returning to their Grand Rapids apartment.

Before the accident, on June 22, 2009, Integon issued a North Carolina auto insurance policy to Lorenzo. When he applied for the policy, Lorenzo had a driver's license issued by the state of Michigan. The license showed Lorenzo's address as 66400 84th Avenue, Apartment 3, in Hartford, Michigan. Evidence established that this apartment complex was reserved for migrant farm workers during the harvest season, and that workers who returned to harvest in that area were given different apartments each year within the complex. Lorenzo stated that he received the driver's license approximately eight years before he testified in 2011. However, on the Integon auto insurance application, Lorenzo listed his address as 115 Juan Sanchez Lane in Teachey, North Carolina and, again, it appears this address was temporary housing for migrant farm workers. Integon denied Lorenzo's claim for benefits under its North Carolina insurance policy because, among other reasons, it maintained that Lorenzo was a Michigan resident at the time of the accident, he did not insure the vehicle with Michigan no-fault insurance, and he misrepresented the primary garaging location of the vehicle as his address in North Carolina, when he knew he planned to take the Expedition to Michigan.

Integon initially paid no-fault benefits to Tienda and Gomez, but stopped because it took the position that, at the time of the accident, Lorenzo was a Michigan resident and, under MCL 500.3163(1), Integon was only obligated to pay for injuries or property damage occurring in Michigan if the owner of the vehicle is a resident of another state. Plaintiffs filed this action against Integon and asserted that Integon must pay first-party PIP benefits, but that Integon refused to pay and unreasonably delayed paying the benefits. Plaintiffs also applied for benefits through the Assigned Claims Facility, which assigned the claim to Titan. See MCL 500.3171 et seq. The trial court permitted Titan to intervene in this action on June 14, 2010. Integon filed a cross-claim against Titan, seeking a declaratory judgment that Titan was responsible for PIP benefits owed to plaintiffs and seeking recoupment of the benefits it had already paid to plaintiffs. Titan filed a counterclaim against Integon, and argued that Lorenzo was a resident of North Carolina when he bought the policy and at the time of the accident, and that if Lorenzo was a Michigan resident, Integon was on notice of this by virtue of Lorenzo's Michigan driver's license and, therefore, Integon should be estopped from denying coverage for plaintiffs' injuries.

Integon and Titan moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), each claiming that the other company was responsible for paying no-fault benefits to Tienda and Gomez. The trial court ultimately denied Integon's motion and granted Titan's motion. The court first ruled that Lorenzo's place of residence was irrelevant and that Integon was obligated to pay for plaintiffs' injuries, stating that it “cannot endorse a decision in this case that makes the recovery of benefits by [plaintiffs] depend on Mr. Lorenzo's residency.” Before ruling, the court remarked that “[e]verybody has to be determined to be a resident of some place....” The court went on to rule that, if Lorenzo's residency was at issue pursuant to MCL 500.3163, Lorenzo was not a Michigan resident because he had no intent to reside in Michigan permanently and he had no greater connection to Michigan than the other states in which he worked. The court cited the factors set forth in Workman v. DAIIE, 404 Mich. 477, 274 N.W.2d 373 (1979), and Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co., 123 Mich.App. 675, 333 N.W.2d 322 (1983), and concluded that Lorenzo was a resident of Florida because he spent more months during the year in Florida. Comparing Lorenzo's situation to that of a professional baseball player who travels to other states for games, the court noted that Integon's position that Lorenzo was a Michigan resident would also mean that baseball players change residency each time they stay at a hotel in a different city. The court rejected this notion and further ruled that, as innocent third parties, plaintiffs were entitled to benefits under the Integon policy pursuant to the financial responsibility act, MCL 257.501 et seq. The court issued an order denying Integon's motion and granting summary disposition to Titan on April 14, 2011. The court also signed an order on August 23, 2011, that directed Integon to pay plaintiffs costs and fees of $21,683.61 as a penalty for its unreasonable refusal to pay, and its delay in paying, no-fault benefits.

III. DISCUSSION

As this Court explained in Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Safety King, Inc., 286 Mich.App. 287, 291, 778 N.W.2d 275 (2009):

This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition. Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich. 331, 337, 572 N.W.2d 201 (1998). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is properly granted if no factual dispute exists, thus entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Rice v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 252 Mich.App. 25, 30–31, 651 N.W.2d 188 (2002). In deciding a motion brought under subrule (C)(10), a court considers all the evidence, affidavits, pleadings,and admissions in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. We also review de novo issues of contract interpretation. Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 473 Mich. 457, 464, 703 N.W.2d 23 (2005).

This case also requires us to interpret sections of the no-fault act. Our Supreme Court opined in Douglas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 492 Mich. 241, 255–256, 821 N.W.2d 472 (2012):

“Issues of statutory interpretation are questions of law that this Court reviews de novo.” [Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 472 Mich. 521, 525–526, 697 N.W.2d 895 (2005).] When interpreting a statute, we must “ascertain the legislative intent that may reasonably be inferred from the words expressed in the statute.” [Koontz v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 466 Mich. 304, 312, 645 N.W.2d 34 (2002).] This requires courts to consider “the plain meaning of the critical word or phrase as well as ‘its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.’ ” [Sun Valley Foods Co. v. Ward, 460 Mich. 230, 237, 596 N.W.2d 119 (1999), quoting Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 145, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995).] If the statutory language is unambiguous, “the Legislature's intent is clear and judicial construction is neither necessary nor...