Priority dispute under the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); Injured motorcycle passengers seeking personal protection insurance benefits; MCL 500.3114(5); First tier of priority under MCL 500.3114(5)(a); “Insured” as defined in the policy; “Domicile”; Multi-factor test; Workman v. DAIIE; Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.; Fowler v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n; Second tier of priority; MCL 500.3114(5)(b)

[Unpublished opinion.] The court vacated the trial court’s judgment holding that defendant-State Farm was in a higher order of priority for payment of no-fault benefits than plaintiff-Wolverine Mutual, and remanded for entry of an order finding that, as a matter of law, defendant-Shawnah-May Lucky Markle’s father’s (JM) State Farm policy did not provide coverage for the accident. On remand, the trial court may conduct further proceedings. The defendants-Adcocks (the husband was driving his motorcycle and his wife was a passenger on the motorcycle) sustained injuries in a collision with a car driven by J. The car was owned by, and registered to, his girlfriend, Shawnah-May. J did not have automobile insurance. Shawnah-May also did not have insurance for the car. When she obtained the car from JM in 2010, it was insured on his policy with State Farm. After moving out of her parents’ home, Shawnah-May moved into an apartment above the home of J’s parents (HP and KP). She and J later lived with her co-worker through the date of the accident. State Farm argued that the trial court erred when it granted plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition because there was no genuine issue of material fact and that Shawnah-May was not insured by JM’s State Farm policy. The court held that State Farm was not liable for payment of no-fault benefits under JM’s State Farm policy because she was not domiciled with her parents at the time of the accident. There was nothing in the record to support a finding that, as a matter of law, State Farm was liable for the payment of no-fault benefits under HP’s State Farm policy. Because these were “the only two policies on which the trial court could have found that State Farm was in a higher order of priority than plaintiff for payment of no-fault benefits arising out of the accident, the trial court erred when it granted plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition” and entered a declaratory judgment finding that State Farm was in a higher order of priority than plaintiff for the payment of no-fault benefits.