Kermit Lamark Copeland v. Allstate Insurance Company

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by granting Allstate summary disposition in a no-fault action concerning the plaintiff’s domicile and priority for payment of PIP benefits. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s affidavit supplemented rather than contradicted his deposition testimony and created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was domiciled at his sister’s address. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, with a concurrence criticizing the notion that every person must have a domicile.

Holdings

1. Summary disposition was improper because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Copeland, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was domiciled at his sister's address on the date of the accident.
2. The affidavit did not directly contradict Copeland's deposition testimony; it added detail concerning places where he had lived and therefore could be considered in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact existed.
3. The trial court could not determine on the existing record that Allstate was not responsible for PIP benefits based on Copeland's alleged domicile at the Judd address.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly resolved the factual question of Copeland's domicile on summary disposition.
2. Whether Copeland's later affidavit contradicted his deposition testimony or instead supplemented it sufficiently to create a genuine issue of material fact.
3. Whether Copeland was domiciled at his sister's address for purposes of determining the highest-priority insurer under Michigan's no-fault act.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded