 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Titan Insurance Co. v. Auto Club Insurance Association8/10/2001
UNPUBLISHED
This case involves a no-fault insurance coverage dispute between two automobile insurers. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover one-half of the no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits that it paid to David Nagy. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals as of right. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of defendant.
David Nagy, a pedestrian, was struck and seriously injured by a motor vehicle. David does not own a car and does not have a no-fault insurance policy in his name. David, his brothers Eugene Nagy and Edward Nagy, and Edward's wife Patricia Nagy, all live in a house in Melvindale, Michigan. The house has two distinct living quarters. David and Eugene occupy the lower level of the house. Edward and Patricia occupy the upper level of the house. Eugene has a no-fault insurance policy with plaintiff. As a relative of Eugene domiciled in the same household, David was entitled to collect, and did collect, no-fault benefits from plaintiff. See MCL 500.3114(1).
Plaintiff then sought reimbursement from defendant, the no-fault insurer of Edward and Patricia. Plaintiff maintained that defendant should share in the payment of benefits because David is also a relative domiciled in the same household as Edward and Patricia. See MCL 500.3115(2). Defendant refused to pay. Defendant took the position that it had no obligation to provide benefits because David did not reside with Edward and Patricia.
Plaintiff subsequently commenced this action seeking to recoup half of the benefits it paid to David. The sole issue at trial was whether David was domiciled in the same household as Edward and Patricia.
Eugene and Edward testified about the layout of the house and their living arrangements. The house is jointly owned by Eugene, Edward and Patricia. It was purchased as a two-family residence, and has not been modified. The house is divided into two separate units, one on the upper level and one on the lower level. David and Eugene live in the lower portion of the house.
Edward and Patricia live in the upper portion of the house. The two units have separate gas meters, electric meters, entrances, living rooms, bathrooms, kitchens and bedrooms. An interior stairway is blocked off. Edward and Patricia do not share their living quarters with Eugene and David. All four Nagys share a common mailbox and mailing address. A single home insurance policy insures the house, and the Nagys have never leased any part of the house. David has always lived on the lower level. Edward and Patricia have always lived on the upper level. Edward testified that David has never lived on the upper level with him and Patricia.
Both parties moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion, and took defendant's motion under advisement. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant renewed its motion for a directed verdict, and the trial court instructed defendant to file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The trial court subsequently denied defendant's motion for JNOV or a new trial.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict and JNOV or a new trial. We review a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for a directed verdict de novo. Gauntlett v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 242 Mich App 172, 176; 617 NW2d 735 (2000).
When evaluating a motion for a directed verdict, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Locke v Pachtman, 446 Mich 21
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|