Priesman v. Meridian Mutual Insurance

Respectfully, I dissent. The majority departs from the clear and unambiguous language of § 3113(a) of the no-fault act1 to reach a result contrary to both its language and its legislative history. Because I conclude that coverage was excluded under the circumstances of this case, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.2

Because Corey Warfield is a relative of the insured, domiciled in the same household, he would ordinarily be eligible for the payment of personal protection insurance benefits under § 3114(1) of the act.3 However, § 3113(a) provides an exclusion:

A person is not…