346 Mich. App. 575
Mich. Ct. App.2023Background
- Accident: Delisa Mapp was injured as a passenger in a 2016 Impala she co‑owned; the Impala was insured by Progressive under a policy that listed Michael Mapp and daughter DeAndrea as named insureds and listed Michael, Delisa, and DeAndrea under a "Drivers and resident relatives" heading.
- Procedural posture: Progressive denied PIP benefits to Delisa (not a named insured); plaintiff then applied to the assigned claims plan (Farm Bureau). Suit followed against both insurers; trial court denied summary disposition for both. Parties appealed.
- Core factual dispute: whether DeAndrea (adult daughter) was domiciled at her Antietam apartment or also "residing"/maintaining a residence at her parents’ Burt Road home at the time of the accident.
- Policy/statutory language tension: MCL 500.3114(1) uses "domiciled in the same household" to identify relatives entitled to mandatory PIP coverage; Progressive’s policy uses "residing in the same household" in its definition of "relative."
- Trial/appeal conclusion: Court of Appeals held (1) an insurer may contractually provide broader PIP coverage than the no‑fault statute requires, (2) "residing" is broader than statutory "domiciled," and (3) genuine issues of material fact remain whether DeAndrea and Delisa resided in the same household so summary disposition was improper; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an insurer may provide PIP coverage broader than the no‑fault statute requires | Mapp: policy language can expand coverage beyond statutory minimum, so she may be covered as a resident relative | Progressive: policy should be read as limited to statutory minimum PIP obligations | Held: An insurer may provide broader coverage than statute; policy can expand who qualifies for PIP |
| Whether Progressive’s use of "residing" is broader than statutory "domiciled" | Mapp: "residing" is broader and can include non‑domiciliary residents of the household | Progressive: statute controls; insurer cannot add coverage obligations beyond statute (or policy interpreted to conform to statute) | Held: "Residing" is broader than "domiciled"; policy language can create broader coverage |
| Whether DeAndrea was domiciled at Burt Road (statutory trigger) | Mapp: indicia (mailing address, possessions, bedroom, key) create doubt she was domiciled elsewhere | Progressive/Farm Bureau: DeAndrea had moved after marriage and was domiciled with husband at Antietam | Held: Court found no genuine issue that DeAndrea was domiciled at Antietam (not Burt Road) but a factual dispute remains whether she nonetheless "resided" at Burt Road |
| Whether declarations-page listing ("Drivers and resident relatives") and premium acceptance estop Progressive or obligate Progressive / whether Farm Bureau is entitled to dismissal | Farm Bureau: declarations listing of Delisa as a "resident relative" (and accepted premium) establishes coverage; Farm Bureau should be dismissed if Progressive is primary | Progressive: listing/phrasing ambiguous; coverage depends on policy definition and facts; estoppel/intent to insure disputed | Held: Declarations-page argument raises material factual and legal issues; trial court should address estoppel/intent-to-insure and priority — remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Grange Ins Co v Lawrence, 494 Mich 475 (discusses distinction between domicile and residence under no‑fault)
- Rohlman v Hawkeye‑Security Ins Co, 442 Mich 520 (addresses interplay of policy definitions and no‑fault statute; allows policy to provide broader coverage)
- Meemic Ins Co v Fortson, 506 Mich 287 (limits on contractual defenses to mandatory no‑fault coverage; antifraud defense framework)
- Bronson Health Care Group, Inc v State Auto Prop & Cas Ins Co, 330 Mich App 338 (recognizes policies may provide broader coverage than statute; contract governs supplemental coverage)
- Lewis v Farmers Ins Exch, 315 Mich App 202 (analyzes statutory relative status and whether policy can expand coverage)
- Workman v Detroit Auto Inter‑Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477 (sets factors for determining domicile)
- Dairyland Ins Co v Auto‑Owners Ins Co, 123 Mich App 675 (additional domicile/residence indicia for adult children)