No-fault personal protection insurance benefits; Whether the plaintiff was an “out-of-state resident” at the time of the accident; MCL 500.3163(1); Tienda v. Integon Nat’l Ins. Co.; Distinguishing “residence” & “domicile”; Grange Ins. Co. of MI v. Lawrence; Workman v. DAIIE; Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.; Whether defendant-Geico General Insurance Company should be estopped from relying on alternative bases for denying plaintiff’s request for benefits under the “mend the hold” doctrine; Smith v. Grange Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of MI; Reimold v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co.; Power of attorney (POA)

Holding that the plaintiff was not an “out-of-state resident” for purposes of MCL 500.3163 at the time of the accident, the court concluded that the trial court erred in ruling that defendant-Geico was obligated to pay her Michigan no-fault benefits. Further, Geico’s assertion of an alternate ground for denying her claim was not inequitable under the facts of the case. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s decision in Docket No. 324698, vacated its opinion and order granting plaintiff summary disposition, and vacated its order compelling Geico to reimburse defendant-Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company and pay costs and interest. The court declined to consider the other issues raised in Docket No. 324698 and those raised in Docket No. 325225. In Docket No. 325225, it vacated the trial court’s order compelling Geico to pay plaintiff’s costs as a prevailing party. It remanded for entry of an order granting Geico’s summary disposition motion and for further proceedings. The court concluded that the undisputed facts showed plaintiff “had established her domicile in Lansing, Michigan just before her accident.” Thus, MCL 500.3163 did not apply. Geico insured her van under a policy issued when she lived in Virginia. Plaintiff admitted that “she no longer had a physical residence in Virginia.” She vacated her apartment, placed most of her personal property in storage, and left “to travel across the country and visit with family.” Once she arrived in Lansing, there was evidence that she “intended to adopt a new domicile, at least for an indefinite period, in Michigan.” She used her POA “to act on her husband’s behalf and entered into a year-long lease for an apartment. Although she denied that she intended to permanently move to Michigan,” plaintiff “agreed that she planned on staying in the apartment until her husband’s deployment ended and he received his new assignment. She further indicated that the stay could be for weeks.” Because plaintiff “no longer had a physical residence in Virginia when she entered into the lease in Lansing, her acquisition of a physical residence in Lansing along with the intent to stay there for the time being was sufficient to effect a change in domicile.”