PIP benefits; The No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.); MCL 500.3114(1); Domicile; Grange Ins. Co. v. Lawrence; Workman v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch.; Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

Concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff was not domiciled with defendant-LM General Insurance’s insured, her stepfather (C), the court affirmed summary disposition for LM on her claim for PIP benefits. The court agreed with the trial court that, even assuming plaintiff stayed with C for two weeks before the accident took place, she clearly “was not ‘domiciled’ in the same household as [C] at the time of her accident.” As to the applicable Dairyland and Workman “factors, (1) plaintiff testified in her deposition that she did not intend to remain at [C’s] home and was only there temporarily until she could get her own place; (2) she had also stayed” for weeks at a friend’s home; (3) her “children did not stay with her at [C’s] home but instead stayed with plaintiff’s aunt; (4) plaintiff did not know the address of [C’s] home and did not change her address to his mailing address; (5)” there was no documentation showing she ever used C’s “address on important documents; and (6) when plaintiff was discharged from the hospital she did not return to [C’s] home. Thus, as the trial court concluded, it was clear from both plaintiff’s deposition testimony as well as her actions that [C’s] home was not plaintiff’s ‘true, fixed, permanent home, and principal establishment, and to which whenever [s]he is absent, [s]he has the intention of returning.’”