Court addresses another PIP dispute generated by a young person's scrambled domicile
Alfronia Carter was hurt in a car accident while driving a vehicle owned by Chrylser and insured by Chrysler's in-house no fault insurer. His parents owned a vehicle insured by American International Insurance Company. Both insurers refused to cover Alfronia's legitimate Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits, so he applied for benefits through the Assigned Claims Plan and Allstate was assigned to pay. When none of the insurers recognized the duty to pay Carter's wages, services and medical expenses, he filed suit and the trial court ultimately concluded that AIG owed PIP benefits to the Plaintiff. AIG appealed that outcome.Alfronia received his mail at his parents' home, kept his belongings there, had a key, a bedroom, and listed that address on his income tax return. He also received bank statements and medical bills at the parents' home and his parents supported him financially. Carter, his parents and his girlfriend all confirmed that he lived with his parents. Despite this wealth of evidence of "domicile," AIG argued that he did not reside with the folks because at an Examination Under Oath (EUO), he had answered a vague question with the suggestion that he was staying at another address when the accident occurred.
Since the parties did not dispute any of the facts, and AIG only disputed the legal implications of the facts (that is, whether they established residency or domicile with his parents) the Court of Appeals held that Summary Dispostion, as a matter of law, was appropriate, and that Carter was domiciled with his folks.