Frownfelter v. Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (July 22, 2026)
Michigan Supreme Court – Landmark No-Fault Decision
In a landmark decision reshaping Michigan No-Fault law, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled its prior decision in Grange Insurance Co. v. Lawrence, holding that a child's domicile is not automatically determined by a divorce custody order for purposes of PIP priority. Instead, courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including where the child actually lives, sleeps, and spends the majority of their time, rather than relying exclusively on the custody judgment. The Court held that custody orders are merely the starting point of the domicile analysis—not the end of it—and reaffirmed the continued application of the traditional Workman and Dairyland domicile factors. The decision fundamentally changes how insurers, practitioners, and courts determine PIP priority when divorced parents share custody.
Significance: This opinion overrules more than a decade of Michigan precedent and will substantially impact No-Fault priority disputes involving children of divorced or separated parents by shifting the focus from formal custody orders to a child's actual living arrangements.
Notably, the Michigan Supreme Court cited the published Court of Appeals decision in Corbin v. Meemic Insurance Co. as an example of the practical shortcomings of the Grange rule and ultimately adopted an approach consistent with the analysis employed in Corbin. Corbin was successfully argued on appeal by Raed (Ray) Abboo, Founder and Managing Attorney of Abboo & Associates PLLC. The Supreme Court's reliance on Corbin underscores its significance in the development of Michigan No-Fault jurisprudence and reflects the case's role in laying the groundwork for the Court's return to a fact-intensive domicile analysis.
Michigan Supreme Court – Landmark No-Fault Decision
In a landmark decision reshaping Michigan No-Fault law, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled its prior decision in Grange Insurance Co. v. Lawrence, holding that a child's domicile is not automatically determined by a divorce custody order for purposes of PIP priority. Instead, courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including where the child actually lives, sleeps, and spends the majority of their time, rather than relying exclusively on the custody judgment. The Court held that custody orders are merely the starting point of the domicile analysis—not the end of it—and reaffirmed the continued application of the traditional Workman and Dairyland domicile factors. The decision fundamentally changes how insurers, practitioners, and courts determine PIP priority when divorced parents share custody.
Significance: This opinion overrules more than a decade of Michigan precedent and will substantially impact No-Fault priority disputes involving children of divorced or separated parents by shifting the focus from formal custody orders to a child's actual living arrangements.
Notably, the Michigan Supreme Court cited the published Court of Appeals decision in Corbin v. Meemic Insurance Co. as an example of the practical shortcomings of the Grange rule and ultimately adopted an approach consistent with the analysis employed in Corbin. Corbin was successfully argued on appeal by Raed (Ray) Abboo, Founder and Managing Attorney of Abboo & Associates PLLC. The Supreme Court's reliance on Corbin underscores its significance in the development of Michigan No-Fault jurisprudence and reflects the case's role in laying the groundwork for the Court's return to a fact-intensive domicile analysis.
| frownfelter-v-esurance-michigan-supreme-court-2026.pdf.pdf |