No-fault insurance; PIP benefits; Resident relative; MCL 500.3114(1); Domicile; Grange Ins Co of MI v Lawrence; Domicile factors; Fowler v Auto Club Ins Ass’n; Self-serving testimony; Distinguishing Fuhr v Trinity Health Corp

The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the named insured was domiciled with the injured claimant at the Redford address when the motor-vehicle accident occurred. Plaintiffs, medical providers acting as assignees, sought PIP benefits from defendant-insurer for treatment provided to the claimant. Defendant argued that she was neither a named insured nor a resident relative under the policy because the named insured (nonparty-W) was domiciled elsewhere. On appeal, the court held that summary disposition was improper because the record contained conflicting evidence on domicile. The court distinguished Fuhr because the claimant’s testimony was not “blatantly contradicted by the record,” and instead “much of the record actually supports it.” The court emphasized that the policy listed W at the Redford address, W’s driver’s license also used that address, she received mail there, kept belongings there, sometimes stayed there, and at points testified in ways supporting Redford as a domicile. Although other testimony supported Birmingham as W’s domicile, including that she lived with her husband there, domicile is generally “a question of fact” when the underlying facts are disputed. The court further held that the trial court appeared to make credibility determinations by accepting portions of W’s testimony and rejecting the claimant’s testimony, but “a trial court may not make a determination regarding the parties’ credibility when ruling on a motion for summary disposition.” Reversed and remanded.