Former MCL 500.3163(1); Domicile at the time of a car accident; Grange Ins Co of MI v Lawrence

Holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the dispositive issue of whether the owner and operator of the vehicle involved in the accident at issue was domiciled in Michigan at the time of the accident, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants-insurers. It determined that there was no underlying factual dispute, and that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff-provider (assignee of plaintiff-Marlene Holbrook), reasonable minds could not differ as to whether William (her husband) was domiciled in Michigan at the time of the accident. On the way from the airport to the Michigan home, while William was driving, the Holbrooks were involved in a car accident, and Marlene was injured. They were covered by a Florida auto insurance plan issued by defendants. Marlene was billed for more than the covered amount in medical care, some of which was provided by plaintiff. Plaintiff sued when defendants refused to cover all of her care, arguing there was evidence William was still domiciled in Florida at the time of the accident. They purchased the Michigan house in 2017, and their testimony reflected their intent to make it their permanent residence. They sold their Florida home in anticipation of the move. But due to “pending litigation and Marlene’s medical issues, they purchased another house in Florida.” Then, in 11/18, “William drove to Michigan with a number of their belongings. He testified that his intent at that point was to live in Michigan and not return to Florida.” Days later, “Marlene took a one-way flight to Michigan.” It was undisputed that she intended to live here “permanently and not return to the Florida home.” While William intended to return to the Florida home, their testimony showed that this “was to prepare the home for sale and move more of their personal belongings from Florida to Michigan.” Finally, before Marlene flew to Michigan, they “completed change-of-address forms with the post office and updated their address with their bank to reflect their Michigan address.” The fact that they owned a home in Florida and had property there was not reflective of his “intent to reside permanently or indefinitely in Florida because the uncontradicted evidence shows that the Florida home was purchased as a temporary residence while the Holbrooks prepared for their intended permanent move to Michigan.” The court held that taking “a trip from Michigan to Florida to retrieve belongings and to finalize the sale of the Florida home is not reflective of an intent to” indefinitely reside there. Affirmed.