Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 November 1993
• Docket Number: Docket No. 147971
• Citation: 509 N.W.2d 821,202 Mich.App. 491
• Parties: Gerard WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 821

509 N.W.2d 821

202 Mich.App. 491

Gerard WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 147971.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 3, 1993, at Grand Rapids.

Decided Nov. 15, 1993, at 9:55 a.m.

Released for Publication Jan. 27, 1994.

Schenk, Boncher & Prasher by Dan E. Bylenga, Jr., Grand Rapids, for plaintiff.

Cholette, Perkins & Buchanan by Robert E. Attmore, Grand Rapids, for defendant.

Before SHEPHERD, P.J., and HOLBROOK and MacKENZIE, JJ.

HOLBROOK, Judge.

In this action for no-fault insurance benefits, plaintiff presented a claim for personal injury protection benefits. Defendant is the no-fault insurer of plaintiff's parents, who live in Grant, Michigan. On May 24, 1990, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). On December 13, 1991, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff for medical expenses, reimbursement for replacement services, and work-loss benefits. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.

After graduating from high school in Grant, Michigan, in 1984, plaintiff moved to Incline Village, Nevada, in August 1984. Plaintiff leased an apartment there, obtained a Nevada driver's license and car insurance, and opened a bank account. Plaintiff was employed in Nevada and later in California.

On December 31, 1987, plaintiff informed his parents that he was moving back to Michigan. Plaintiff quit his job, closed his bank account in Nevada and opened another one in Michigan, relinquished his apartment, forwarded his mail to his parents' address in Michigan, and loaded his personal belongings in his truck. On March 8, 1988, plaintiff left Nevada to move to Michigan.

On the way to Michigan, plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident in Oklahoma on March 11, 1988. At the time of the accident, plaintiff had Nevada car insurance and Nevada license plates. Plaintiff also had personal belongings in his bedroom at his parents' house in Grant, Michigan, that he had left before moving to Nevada. After plaintiff arrived in Michigan, he moved into his parents' home rent-free for four months.

The issue in the trial court and the sole issue on appeal is whether plaintiff was domiciled in his parents' household at the time of the accident and therefore entitled to no-fault benefits. Two statutes are applicable. M.C.L. § 500.3111; M.S.A. § 24.13111 provides that personal injury protection benefits "are payable" for accidental bodily injury suffered in an accident occurring outside Michigan but within the United States or Canada if the injured person at the time of the accident was the named insured, the insured's spouse, "a relative of either domiciled in the same household," or a qualified occupant. M.C.L. § 500.3114(1); M.S.A. § 24.13114(1) provides in relevant part:

[A] personal protection insurance policy described in section 3101(1) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing regarding the motion for summary disposition, defendant argued that plaintiff's domicile in Nevada continued until he was physically present in Michigan. Plaintiff argued that he had renounced his domicile in Nevada and had replaced his domicile with his parents' home in Michigan. The trial court found that plaintiff was domiciled in Michigan because "all his bridges were burned in Nevada." In reaching its conclusion, the trial court also gave "special weight" to plaintiff's intent to be domiciled in Michigan.

Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), summary disposition of all or part of a claim may be granted when there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact except concerning the amount of damages, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law. Giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the nonmoving party, the court must determine whether a record might be developed that will leave open an issue upon which reasonable minds could differ. American Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. v. Frankenmuth Mutual Ins. Co., 199 Mich.App. 202, 206, 501 N.W.2d 237 (1993). In the present case, none of the facts are in dispute and the trial court was left to determine as a matter of law whether plaintiff was domiciled in Michigan at the time of the accident.

In determining whether a person is domiciled in the same household as the insured, the following factors should be considered: (1) the subjective or declared intent of the person to remain indefinitely or permanently in the insured's household; (2) the formality or informality of the relationship between the person and the members of the insured's household; (3) whether the place where the person 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 in the household. Workman v. DAIIE, 404 Mich. 477, 496-497, 274 N.W.2d 373 (1979); Dobson v. Maki, 184 Mich.App. 244, 252, 457 N.W.2d 132 (1990). This Court has stated that the following factors are also relevant in determining the domicile of an individual: (1) the person's mailing address; (2) whether the person maintains possessions at the insured's home; (3) whether the insured's address appears on the person's driver's license and other documents; (4) whether a bedroom is maintained for the person at the insured's home; and (5) whether the person is dependent upon the insured for financial support or assistance. Id.; Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 123 Mich.App. 675, 682, 333 N.W.2d 322 (1983).

Applying these considerations to the facts in the present case, we find no error in the trial court's determination that plaintiff was domiciled in Michigan at the time of the accident. Although the trial court improperly gave "special weight" to plaintiff's intent, see Workman, supra 404 Mich. at 496, n. 5, 274 N.W.2d 373, it is overwhelmingly clear that plaintiff was domiciled in his parents' household. We conclude that the trial court did not err in granting plaintiff summary disposition. Accordingly, the trial court's December 13, 1991, judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SHEPHERD, P.J., concurred.

MacKENZIE, Judge (dissenting).

I disagree with the majority's conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to no-fault benefits under M.C.L. § 500.3111; M.S.A. § 24.13111 and M.C.L. § 500.3114(1); M.S.A. § 24.13114(1) because he was domiciled in his parents' Michigan home at the time he was injured.

The controlling facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Oklahoma while in the process of moving from his old residence in Nevada to his parents' home in Michigan, which was his intended new residence. Defendant is the no-fault automobile insurance carrier for plaintiff's parents. M.C.L. § 500.3111; M.S.A. § 24.13111 and M.C.L. § 500.3114(1); M.S.A. § 24.13114(1) afford no-fault personal protection insurance benefits to a relative "domiciled" in the same household as a no-fault policyholder. The issue here, therefore, is whether plaintiff was domiciled in his parents' Michigan home at the time of the accident. In my opinion, he was not.

It is well established that, as a general rule, domicile requires two elements--intent and physical presence--and that these elements must concur in time. Wisconsin Potowatomies of Hannahville Indian Community v. Houston, 393 F.Supp. 719,...