Priority for payment of personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; MCL 500.3114(1); Whether use of the word “residing” provides broader coverage than “domiciled”; Grange Ins Co v Lawrence; Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch; Whether an insurer can provide for broader PIP benefits than those required by the No-Fault Act; Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (MACP)

Noting that relevant cases had not clearly resolved the issue, the court held that a no-fault policy may provide broader coverage than statutorily mandated, even as to a mandated coverage. Further, the policy language at issue here provided “a broader category of eligible recipients of PIP benefits beyond the statutorily requirement of coverage for those relatives domiciled in a named insured’s household.” In addition, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff was eligible for PIP benefits under defendant-Progressive’s policy. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary disposition motions by Progressive and defendant-Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, and remanded. The insurers disputed which of them was required to pay plaintiff’s PIP benefits after she was injured in an auto accident while a passenger in a car that she co-owned. The other titled owner of the car was her ex-husband, M. She and M were divorced but continued residing together in a home, along with an adult daughter (D). The declarations page of Progressive’s policy (which covered the car and other vehicles) listed plaintiff, M, and D as drivers and resident relatives; it also listed M and D, “but not plaintiff, as named insureds.” When Progressive denied plaintiff’s claim, she applied for benefits through the MACP, and Farm Bureau was assigned her claim. The court found that Progressive was responsible for paying “her PIP benefits under MCL 500.3114(1) if she is domiciled in the same household as” D. If she was not (and the court determined there was no fact issue as to whether D was domiciled in the home – she was not), Progressive was responsible for payment “only if the policy language creates that obligation and plaintiff resides in the same household as” D. The court noted that “this distinction between the statute’s use of the term ‘domiciled’ and the policy’s use of the word ‘residing’” was at the heart of the dispute. Assuming they were not domiciled in the same household, the questions presented were “(1) whether the use of the word ‘residing’ provides broader coverage than ‘domiciled’ and, if so, (2) whether an insurer can provide for broader PIP benefits than those required by statute.” The court answered both in the affirmative.