First-party no-fault action; Personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits; Applicability of a no-fault policy; MCL 500.3114(1); “Domicile”; Grange Ins Co of MI v Lawrence; Resident relative; Mapp v Progressive Ins Co; Hearsay

The court held that, given the conflicting evidence as to whether the injured person (nonparty-Kevin Jr.) and defendant’s insured (nonparty-Sharmaine) “lived together at the time of the accident, a genuine issue of material fact” existed as to whether Kevin Jr. was a resident relative covered under the policy. Thus, the court reversed the circuit court opinion affirming a district court order granting defendant summary disposition in this first-party action for PIP benefits. The court noted in Mapp that a no-fault “‘policy may provide broader coverage than that mandated by the no-fault act,’ including by extending coverage not just to ‘relatives domiciled in a named insured’s household,’ but to ‘relatives residing in a named insured’s household.’” The parties argued that in disputing whether Kevin Jr. was a resident relative, the other was relying on hearsay. But the court noted that, at this stage of the litigation, “whether the statements in their currently offered form constitute hearsay is not determinative.” Although trial courts “may consider only substantively admissible evidence, ‘a party does not have to lay the foundation for evidence submitted in support of or opposition to a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).’” Both parties relied “on claim notes or other written documentation to support their respective positions regarding where Sharmaine lived. The substance of this evidence, to the extent not already admissible in its current form, could be presented at trial through testimony from Sharmaine herself. Accordingly, even if the evidence was submitted in an inadmissible form, it remains substantively admissible.” Given the conflicting evidence here, which created a genuine issue of material fact, “summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) was improper.” Remanded to the district court for further proceedings.