 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Michigan Insurance Co. v. State Farm Insurance Co.9/15/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Neff and Donofrio, JJ.
In this automobile no-fault insurance claim declaratory action, plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), and denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary disposition. Because plaintiff's insured is the claimant's spouse, plaintiff is obligated to provide personal injury protection benefits to the claimant and we affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision granting or denying summary disposition in a declaratory action. Unisys Corp v Comm'r of Ins, 236 Mich App 686, 689; 601 NW2d 155 (1999).
The pertinent facts are undisputed. Plaintiff issued a no-fault policy to Wayne Draper and his wife in January 2004. On March 17, 2004, Wayne Draper signed a policy change form and gave permission for his name to be removed from the policy. He was injured on April 9, 2004, while riding as a passenger in a vehicle insured by defendant. At the time of the accident, he was not domiciled with his wife and divorce proceedings were ongoing. The Drapers' judgment of divorce was entered after the accident.
The trial court correctly determined that pursuant to MCL 500.3114(1), the spouse of a named insured need not be domiciled with the named insured to be eligible for personal protection benefits. MCL 500.3114(1) states:
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (5), a personal protection insurance policy described in section 3101(1) applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, the person's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, if the injury arises from a motor vehicle accident.
The comma following "the person's spouse" indicates that the phrase "domiciled in the same household" modifies only "a relative of either."
In Citizens Mutual Ins Co v Community Services Ins Co, 65 Mich App 731, 732; 238 NW2d 182 (1975), this Court examined a prior version of § 3114(1), which stated:
Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), a personal protection insurance policy applies to accidental bodily injury to the person named in the policy, his spouse and any relative of either domiciled in the same household.
This Court rejected the argument that the phrase "domiciled in the same household" applied to "spouse" as well as to "any relative of either," but noted that the argument was consistent with the structure of the sentence in that version of the statute and expressed that "it might be preferable to place a comma before 'and any relative.'" Id., 733. Plaintiff's argument under the current version of § 3114 is even weaker than that rejected in Citizens Mutual Ins Co, because the current version includes a comma before the phrase "and a relative of either."
Plaintiff further contends that the law is unsettled on this point because Citizens Mutual Ins Co conflicts with Bierbusse v Farmers Ins Group, 84 Mich App 34; 269 NW2d 297 (1978). However, both were issued before November 1, 1990, and, therefore, are not binding under MCR 7.215(J). In any event, the point of disagreement between Bierbusse and Citizens Mutual Ins Co concerns coverage for relatives of the named insured and the insured's spouse, which is not at issue here. There was no disagreement in Bierbusse concerning the coverage afforded the estranged spouse. Furthermore, subsequent decisions addressing priority of insurers implicitly recognize that a spouse of the named insured who is not domiciled in the same household as the
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|