Watch SMDA associate Sean Serafini’s April 9, 2026 argument before the Michigan Supreme Court in Frownfelter v Esurance Property & Casualty Co., et. al.

This case involves a minor child of divorced parents who was involved in an auto accident while she was a passenger in a car driven by her brother. Since her brother lived with her father, and the father owned the car, suit for her injuries had to be filed against her father. Additionally, suit was filed against both her mother’s and father’s respective no-fault insurers after they refused to pay for the child’s medical treatment and essentially just pointed the finger at each other.

There were two primary questions in this case. First, whether the minor child would get no-fault PIP benefits from her mother’s auto insurance or her father’s auto insurance. This question turned on where the child was considered “domiciled”.

The second issue was whether the minor child, who indisputably primarily lived with her mother, would be subject to a coverage reduction provision in her father’s policy of auto insurance, that would leave her father with only $20,000.00 of liability coverage instead of the $250,000.00 of coverage that he had purchased. This determination turned on the definition of “resident” in the policy of insurance that Esurance had written and issued to the father. Accordingly, this finding would also determine the amount the minor child, who suffered serious injuries to her spine, would be able to recover under the insurance policy.

Both the trial court and Court of Appeals held that the minor child’s domicile was with her father, because she had spent the night before the collision at her father’s house. Similarly, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling that the child was a “resident” of her father’s house, such that the coverage reduction provision applied. SMDA appealed this decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear oral argument on the matter.

On April 9, 2026, Mr. Serafini argued for reversal of the lower court decisions before the Supreme Court. Regarding the first issue, Mr. Serafini argued that although the lower courts had incorrectly applied the existing test used to determine the domicile of a minor child of divorced parents, the Supreme Court should re-write the rule complete, as it had led to numerous conflicting Court of Appeals opinions in the previous few years. Amicus briefing in support of this position was submitted by the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Association for Justice.

On the second issue, Mr. Serafini argued that Esurance should be forced to provide the $250,000.00 that the child’s father had bought and paid for. Though Esurance failed to define the term “resident” in the policy, Esurance argued that the term should be given the broadest meaning possible, such that the child would be considered a resident of her father’s household, when she did not live there and only visited about one weekend per month.

Mr. Serafini asserted that Esurance, with a team of coverage attorneys and underwriters, had no excuse for not defining the term “resident” if they truly intended to expand the term resident to include a person who spends a couple of nights per month at another family member’s house. However, since Esurance did not define the term, it was ambiguous, or subject to multiple meanings, as a matter of law. Mr. Serafini argued that because the Supreme Court has long held that any ambiguity in an insurance contract must be construed against the drafter of that contract, which was Esurance, and because the Court has repeatedly stated that insurance contracts should be construed in favor of providing coverage, the child’s father should get what he thought he was paying for: $250,000.00 of liability coverage.

The Michigan Supreme Court is expected to issue either a written order or opinion detailing its decision within the next few months.

Click here to read more about Attorney Sean Serafini.

When there are children involved in a divorce proceeding, it is encumbent upon the parents to foster and encourage a positive relationship with the other parent regardless of how contentious the divorce may have been. The divorce results in a realignment of the family unit which can be followed by further changes that were never even contemplated during the divorce.

One such change is that one of the parents may have an opportunity to move beyond the 100 mile restriction that is contained in all divorce judgments. Common reasons for such a move is to be closer to other extended family that can help raise the children or for a new job opportunity. Either way, the parent requesting the change in domicile must either obtain the agreement and consent of the other parent or if there is no agreement, the parent requesting the move must prove that the legal residence change has the capacity to improve the quality of life for both the child and the relocating parent, that the move is not an effort to deprive the other parent access to the child(ren), that it is possible to fashion a schedule that continues to foster a relationship with the other parent, that the moving parent is not trying to secure a financial advantage over the other parent to reduce a child supportobligation and consider whether there is any history of domestic violence.

In McKimmy v. Melling, a recent case decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the trial court was found to have misapplied the third factor by simply concluding that the proposed parenting time schedule was not the best plan; but this decision was reversed and sent back to the lower court so that it could deterimine whether the parenting time schedule proposed by plaintiff provided “a realistic opportunity” or “an adequate basis,” to preserve and foster the relationship the non-moving parent had with the children.

So, if you are considering a move out of statewith your children following divorce, you should consult an experienced Michigan divorce lawyer to consider whether you believe you can prove the above factors can be satisfied in your case.