Grange Insurance Co of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence
494 Mich. 475
| Mich. | 2013Background
- Child of divorced parents with two legal residences; no-fault no dual-domicile rule applied; custody orders can establish domicile by operation of law; Grange and ACIA disputes involve PIP eligibility and insurer priority; majority reverses appellate decisions and adopts single-domicile rule tied to custody orders; case presents two main issues about domicile under MCL 500.3114(1) and effect of custody orders on domicile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a child of divorced parents be domiciled in more than one household under MCL 500.3114(1)? | Grange argues dual domiciles exist under the statute. | Farm Bureau argues the statute contemplates separate domiciles. | No; a child may have only one domicile at any time. |
| Is a family court custody order conclusive evidence of a child’s domicile for no-fault purposes? | Grange contends custody orders are not conclusive on domicile for no-fault. | Grange argues the order should determine domicile for all purposes. | Custody order is conclusive evidence of domicile established by operation of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477 (1979) (defined no-fault domicile factors; acknowledged synonomy of domicile and residence in some contexts)
- Dairyland Ins Co v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 123 Mich App 675 (1983) (multifactor domicile framework for no-fault involving minors)
- In re Volk, 254 Mich 25 (1931) (custody order establishes child’s domicile by operation of law)
- Grange Ins Co v Lawrence, 493 Mich 851 (2012) (custody order determines minor’s domicile; no dual-domicile rule affirmed)
- Vanguard Ins Co v Racine, 224 Mich App 229 (1997) (early no-fault domicile guidance in custody context)