ANTHONY GOODSON V STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ANTHONY GOODSON,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2011
Plaintiff,
v
No. 292652
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-114980-NF
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant/Cross-DefendantAppellant.
GETWELL MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION,
SUNCARE REHABILITATION, and DR.
DAWIT TEKLEHAIMANOT,
Plaintiffs,
v
No. 294236
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-110942-NI
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and STEPHENS and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.
-1-
PER CURIAM.
In Docket Nos. 292652 and 294236,1 defendant/cross-defendant, State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), appeals by leave granted2 from the trial court’s
order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant/cross-plaintiff, Farmers Insurance
Exchange (“Farmers”). On appeal, State Farm argues that there remains a genuine issue of
material fact regarding where plaintiff, Anthony Goodson, was domiciled at the time he was
injured in an automobile accident, for purposes of priority between defendant insurers. We
agree. This matter is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
State Farm argues that the trial court improperly resolved factual questions regarding
Goodson’s domicile when it granted summary disposition in Farmers’ favor. MCL 500.3114(1),
in the no-fault act, provides:
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. [Emphasis added.]
This issue, and this entire case, hinges on whether Goodson was domiciled with his parents
(“Wisconsin address”) or his girlfriend (“Santa Barbara address”) at the time he was injured in
the auto accident—July 17, 2006. The trial court concluded that, although there was conflicting
evidence, a reasonable jury could only conclude that Goodson lived with his parents at the
Wisconsin address at the time of the accident. We disagree.
Domicile, as used in MCL 500.3114(1) is legally synonymous with “residence” in
Michigan law. Cervantes v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 272 Mich App 410, 414; 726 NW2d 73
(2006). Further, the phrase “domiciled in the same household” is to be “viewed flexibly.” Id.
Courts have developed a series of non-exclusive factors for determining a party’s residence or
domicile, including “the subjective or declared intent of the person,” “the formality or
informality of the relationship between the person and the members of the household,” “the
existence of another place of lodging by the person alleging . . . ‘domicile’ in the household,”
“whether the person maintains possessions at the” residence, “whether the insured’s address
appears on the person’s driver’s license and other documents,” the maintenance of a bedroom at
the residence, and “whether the person is dependent upon the insured for financial support or
1
These cases were consolidated in the trial court. This Court consolidated the appeals on
November 24, 2010. Goodson v Farmers Ins Exchange, unpublished order of the Court of
Appeals, entered November 24, 2010 (Docket Nos. 292652 and 294236).
2
Goodson v Farmers Ins Exchange, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered
November 10, 2009 (Docket No. 292652); Getwell v Farmers Ins Exchange, unpublished order
of the Court of Appeals, entered November 10, 2009 (Docket No. 294236).
-2-
assistance.” Id. at 414-415 (quoting Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477, 495;
274 NW2d 373 (1979), and Williams v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 202 Mich App 491, 494495; 509 NW2d 821 (1993)). Finally, a party’s domicile is generally a question of fact, unless
the facts are not in dispute, in which case it is a question of law for the court. Fowler v Auto
Club Ins Assoc, 254 Mich App 362, 364; 656 NW2d 856 (2002).
The primary evidence in support of the Wisconsin address is that Goodson testified that
he lived at the address, and the traffic report from the accident indicated that he lived at that
address. Additionally, his address of record for purposes of his parole and social security
benefits is the Wisconsin address. Goodson also testified that he had previously stated that he
lived at the Santa Barbara address, but only because his father asked him to do so.
Goodson’s father testified that Goodson did not live at the Wisconsin address at the time
of the accident. Goodson’s mother, on the other hand, gave equivocal testimony. She stated that
“he lived there and he lived here,” saying that he has a bed, television, and some clothes in the
basement of the house, contrary to the father’s testimony. She concurred that he did not have a
key to the house. Further complicating her testimony, she later signed a confirmation of
interview clearly indicating that Goodson’s “permanent address” was the Wisconsin address.
State Farm also presented documentary evidence showing that Goodson’s address after
the accident was the Santa Barbara address. Finally, a psychologist’s summary of Goodson’s
description of the accident indicated that Goodson was leaving his house to go to his mother’s
house at the time of the accident.3
Much of State Farm’s evidence pertains to Goodson’s domicile after the accident. By
itself, this does not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding his domicile at the time of the
accident because it is common sense that someone may change their domicile at any time. The
testimony of Goodson’s parents, however, is problematic.
Goodson’s father plainly testified that Goodson moved out of the Wisconsin address
before the accident. This testimony is partially contradicted by Goodson’s mother and directly
contrary to Goodson’s testimony. A court may not make credibility determinations when
deciding a motion for summary disposition. Burkhardt v Bailey, 260 Mich App 636, 646-647;
680 NW2d 453 (2004). While there is a believable narrative—raised by Goodson’s later
testimony to this effect—that all three deponents lied about Goodson’s domicile at their
depositions because his parents feared their premiums would go up, it is not for the court to
resolve the incumbent questions of credibility in order to reach this conclusion. Further,
questions of intent and motive—like credibility—should generally not be decided on summary
disposition. Foreman v Foreman, 266 Mich App 132, 135-136; 701 NW2d 167 (2005).
3
State Farm also attached additional exhibits to their brief on appeal that were not presented to
the trial court. A party may not expand the record on appeal. Detroit Leasing Co v Detroit, 269
Mich App 233, 237; 713 NW2d 269 (2005). We have not considered these exhibits in this
appeal.
-3-
Here, there is unequivocal testimony from one inhabitant of the Wisconsin address that
Goodson did not live there at the time of the accident, and equivocal testimony from the other.
Both raise the possibility that Goodson lived at least part of the time with his girlfriend at the
Santa Barbara address. And there is considerable evidence that he lived at that address after the
accident. Because there is a clear dispute in the facts, granting summary disposition in favor of
Farmers was not proper in this case. See Fowler, 254 Mich App at 364.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
-4-
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.
