RAY LEE FOWLER V AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RAY LEE FOWLER,
FOR PUBLICATION
December 6, 2002
9:10 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION, d/b/a
AIRBORNE EXPRESS,
No. 232688
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 00-020007-NI
Defendant,
and
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,
a/k/a AAA,
Updated Copy
February 14, 2003
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Talbot and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This is an action for first-party no-fault insurance benefits. Plaintiff appeals as of right
from an order granting summary disposition for defendant Auto Club Insurance Association
under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
Plaintiff was injured at work while repairing a truck. He did not own a car and did not
have automobile insurance at the time of the accident. He sought personal protection insurance
benefits under a no-fault policy issued by defendant to his mother as a relative domiciled in her
household. MCL 500.3114(1). The trial court concluded that, as a matter of law, he was not
domiciled in his parents' household. We agree.
This Court's review of a decision regarding a motion for summary disposition is de novo.
Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). A motion under
MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a complaint. In deciding a motion brought
under this subrule, the trial court considers the documentary evidence submitted by the parties in
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109,
120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). If the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any
material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
-1-
Generally, the determination of domicile is a question of fact. However, where, as here,
the underlying facts are not in dispute, domicile is a question of law for the court. Goldstein v
Progressive Cas Ins Co, 218 Mich App 105, 111-112; 553 NW2d 353 (1996); Williams v State
Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co, 202 Mich App 491, 494-495; 509 NW2d 821 (1993). Several
factors should be considered in determining domicile, and these factors should be weighed or
balanced with each other because no one factor is determinative. Univ of Michigan Regents v
State Farm Mut Ins Co, 250 Mich App 719, 730; 650 NW2d 129 (2002).
The relevant factors in deciding whether a person is domiciled in the same household as
the insured include: (1) the subjective or declared intent of the claimant to remain indefinitely in
the insured's household, (2) the formality of the relationship between the claimant and the
members of the household, (3) whether the place where the claimant lives is in the same house,
within the same curtilage, or upon the same premises as the insured, and (4) the existence of
another place of lodging for the person alleging domicile. Workman v DAIIE, 404 Mich 477,
496-497; 274 NW2d 373 (1979).
When considering whether a child is domiciled with the child's parents, other relevant
indicia include: (1) whether the child continues to use the parents' home as the child's mailing
address, (2) whether the child maintains some possessions with the parents, (3) whether the child
uses the parents' address on the child's driver's license or other documents, (4) whether a room is
maintained for the child at the parents' home, and (5) whether the child is dependent upon the
parents for support. Goldstein, supra at 112, citing Dairyland Ins Co v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 123
Mich App 675, 682; 333 NW2d 322 (1983).
In this case, at the time of the accident plaintiff was divorced, was approximately thirty
years old, and lived with his girlfriend in a carriage house apartment located next to his parents'
house. Plaintiff had lived in the carriage house apartment for more than three years before he
was injured, and did not have any plans to move. The carriage house and the main house had a
shared address; however, the carriage house had its own entrance, its own set of locks, and its
own walkway. The apartment consisted of a kitchen, a bathroom, a living room, and four
bedrooms. Plaintiff testified that the carriage house had its own water, electric, gas, and
telephone service, and that he or his girlfriend paid the utility bills. Plaintiff paid his parents,
who had keys to the carriage house, rent of $500 a month, although the rental agreement was not
reduced to a writing. Until he was injured, plaintiff and his girlfriend both worked and they
shared housekeeping, laundry, and grocery shopping responsibilities. Plaintiff performed lawn
maintenance and snow removal for his parents, and had an informal relationship in which he was
allowed full access to their home. Plaintiff and his parents often ate together.
We find that the trial court properly concluded that the carriage house residence was a
self-sufficient, freestanding, and independent residence, and that after weighing the pertinent
factors it was clear that plaintiff was not domiciled with his parents. Unlike the arrangement in
Workman, the evidence in this case established that plaintiff 's living arrangement was
independent from his parents' household. Plaintiff did not have a room in his parents' house, he
did not rely on his parents for utilities or appliances, and plaintiff paid rent until he was injured.
The fact that plaintiffs' parents had keys to the carriage house and that plaintiff stored items of
personal property in his parents' house was insufficient in the face of the other evidence to make
him a member of their household. Dairyland, supra at 684. On these facts, the trial court
-2-
correctly determined as a matter of law that plaintiff was not domiciled in his parents' household
and therefore was not entitled to benefits under his mother's no-fault policy.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.