Lewis v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
315 Mich. App. 202
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- On Oct. 26, 2012 Valencia Lewis was injured as a pedestrian in a hit-and-run while living in a townhouse with Tamekiah Gordon and Gordon’s son; Gordon owned an insured vehicle but Lewis did not.
- Lewis sued Farmers Insurance Exchange for PIP benefits under Gordon’s no-fault policy, claiming she was a “relative … domiciled in the same household” under MCL 500.3114(1).
- Lewis initially called Gordon her “sister,” but in a later deposition conceded Gordon was not a blood relative and described the relationship as a “cousin by marriage” (their respective aunt and uncle are married).
- Farmers moved for summary disposition, arguing Lewis was neither a blood relative nor related by marriage (affinity) to Gordon and thus not entitled to PIP under the statute or the policy.
- The trial court denied summary disposition, concluding Lewis was a “relative” under the statute and a “family member” under the policy because they were “cousins by marriage.”
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) MCL 500.3114(1)’s term “relative” does not encompass the attenuated “cousins by marriage” relationship at issue, and (2) the policy’s definition of “family member” mirrors the statutory meaning and therefore does not afford broader coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewis is a “relative … domiciled in the same household” under MCL 500.3114(1) | Lewis: she is a “cousin by marriage” to Gordon and thus a relative by marriage (affinity) eligible for PIP | Farmers: Lewis is not related by blood, marriage (as legally understood), or adoption; her relationship is too attenuated to be affinity | Court: Not a qualifying relative; affinity means the relation between a spouse and the blood relatives of the other, not between unrelated persons whose relatives married each other; reversed |
| Whether the insurance policy’s term “family member” provides broader coverage than the statute | Lewis: policy and statute are ambiguous; “cousin by affinity” could be within policy scope, so factual issues should preclude summary disposition | Farmers: the policy’s definition—related by blood, marriage, or adoption—matches statutory meaning and does not expand coverage | Court: Policy mirrors statutory concept of “relative by marriage”; no broader coverage; trial court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 268 Mich. App. 342 (definition of “relative” for MCL 500.3114(1) includes relations by marriage, consanguinity, or adoption)
- Corwin v. DaimlerChrysler Ins. Co., 296 Mich. App. 242 (insurer providing auto coverage liable for no-fault benefits as subject to the act)
- Wilkie v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 469 Mich. 41 (no-fault policies may expand coverage beyond mandatory statutory coverage)
- Zajaczkowski v. [State], 493 Mich. 6 (definition of affinity: relation by marriage between a spouse and the blood relatives of the other; degrees computed like consanguinity)
- Bliss v. Tyler, 149 Mich. 601 (reaffirming limits on extending affinity beyond spouse–blood-relative relations)
- Armstrong v. [State], 212 Mich. App. 121 (discussed scope of affinity in a different statutory context; court distinguishes and declines to follow its broader view)