Action for first-party personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the No-Fault Act; Domicile; MCL 500.3114(1); Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch; Dairyland Ins Co v Auto Owners Ins Co

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendant-insurer’s motion for summary disposition and holding that it was the highest priority insurer for plaintiff’s (the minor victims’ father) PIP claim. Plaintiff sued defendant seeking PIP benefits for his children, who were injured in a car crash that happened while their aunt was driving. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding it was the highest priority insurer for the claim. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that because the minors were domiciled with their parents as a matter of law, they were not entitled to PIP benefits under their aunt’s insurance policy. The “minors had two residences on the date of the accident—the hotel and” their aunt’s home. However, they “could only have one domicile.” On the date of the accident, their “parents were married and had legal custody of the children.” As such, they “were domiciled with their parents as a matter of law.” And it was undisputed that the parents were not domiciled in the aunt’s “household on the date of the accident.” Because the “minors were not named insureds under [the aunt’s] policy and were domiciled with their parents on the date of the accident,” the aunt’s policy was inapplicable to their PIP claim. Reversed and remanded.