834 N.W.2d 908
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lorenzo, an itinerant migrant farm worker, had no permanent home and moved among Michigan, North Carolina, and Florida seasonally.
- At the July 29, 2009 accident in Allegan County, Michigan, Lorenzo lived in Michigan with Tienda, Gomez, and Castro and worked at a Michigan farm.
- Integon issued a North Carolina policy to Lorenzo; Lorenzo listed a North Carolina address on the application but held a Michigan driver’s license with a Michigan address.
- Titan was intervenor via the Assigned Claims Facility; the trial court granted Titan summary disposition and denied Integon’s motion.
- The trial court ruled Lorenzo’s residency was irrelevant for no-fault coverage and held he was a Florida resident for purposes of MCL 500.3163.
- The Court held Lorenzo was a Michigan resident as a matter of law, making Titan the priority insurer and remanding to determine fee-shifting consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residency under MCL 500.3163 governs liability | Lorenzo was a Michigan resident; Integon bears no-fault liability. | Residency is not determinative or Lorenzo was a non-Michigan resident. | Residency controls; Lorenzo is Michigan resident; Titan liable. |
| Trial court erred in discounting Lorenzo's residency | Workman/Dairyland factors support Michigan domicile for Lorenzo. | Domicile cannot be found in migrant-work circumstances; Florida or NC residency plausible. | Reversed; Lorenzo is Michigan resident as a matter of law. |
| Effect of Assigned Claims Facility on liability | Titan as assignee is responsible if Lorenzo is Michigan resident. | Integon bears no-fault liability unless Lorenzo is Michigan resident. | Titan is the priority insurer due to Lorenzo's Michigan residency; remand for fee assessment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hastings Mut Ins Co v Safety King, Inc., 286 Mich App 287 (2009) (de novo review; summary disposition standard)
- Workman v DAIIE, 404 Mich 477 (1979) (domicile/residence factors; holistic balancing)
- Dairyland Ins Co v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 123 Mich App 675 (1983) (additional domicile indicia; not determinative)
- Farm Bureau Ins Co v Allstate Ins Co, 233 Mich App 38 (1998) (resident analysis; significant Michigan ties)
- Witt v American Family Mut Ins Co, 219 Mich App 602 (1996) (residency despite limited time in other state)
- Soto v Director of the Mich Dep’t of Social Servs, 73 Mich App 263 (1977) (resident definition in aid context; temporary presence)