no fault auto insurance

Toby Oxborrow / Flickr

A state House panel will begin public hearings tomorrow (Tuesday) on whether Michigan should make some big changes to the mandatory no fault auto insurance law.

The controversial proposal would let drivers choose their level of coverage.

The proposal also includes a $50,000 appropriation to implement the law in such a way as to make it referendum-proof.

Former state Representative Jim Howell says that money is in the bill to prevent voters from overturning the measure on the ballot.

"You know, I saw that appropriation, I knew what was going on with it. Very honestly – unless some of the current representatives have read about it some place, or heard it in the media, they wouldn’t have any clue," said Howell.

Howell said he thinks term limits prevent new lawmakers from understanding the content of a major proposal such as the no fault elimination bills.

Howell said they probably don’t remember that voters rejected similar changes to no fault insurance by a significant margin in the early 1990s.

The former Republican lawmaker will testify against the proposal tomorrow (Tuesday).

user H.L.I.T. / Flickr

Tomorrow (TUES.) the Michigan legislature holds the first hearings on bills that would change the state’s no-fault auto insurance.  Legislators say auto insurance is too high and they want to allow people to buy less coverage. 

Right now, people who buy car insurance in Michigan also have to purchase something called Personal Injury Protection.  But, Representative Pete Lund says drivers who don't want the coverage should by law be able to pay for something less.

“I think it’s good to give people the options in life.”

People injured in auto crashes would not be allowed to use their no-fault coverage to pay for medical marijuana to treat chronic pain under a bill approved by a legislative committee.

The measure is one of several proposed new restrictions to Michigan’s medical marijuana law.

The law was enacted by voters in 2008.

Peter Kuhnmuench is with the Insurance Institute of Michigan, which supports the measure. He says insurance coverage was not supposed to be part of the medical marijuana law.

"So I think it’s pretty clear, yes, they want to utilize this is as a medical procedure, but at the same hand, not force any carrier to cover it as a covered service."

Kuhnmuench  says the bill would not prohibit someone from buying additional coverage that might pay for medical marijuana.

Medical marijuana patients say the law should not specifically ban one treatment for people facing chronic pain from an injury.

Michigan Supreme Court

The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases on whether people who use a family vehicle without permission are covered by no-fault benefits if they are injured in a crash.

In one case, Ryan DeYoung was excluded from his wife’s insurance policy.

In September of 2008, he got drunk, took his wife’s car without permission and crashed the vehicle.

The hospital and recovery center billed the insurance company, which denied the claim.

The insurance company is challenging an appeals court ruling that says DeYoung was covered under “joyriding” clause that typically covers teen-aged drivers who take their parents’ vehicles without permission.

In a separate case, an insurer is challenging a ruling that Craig Smith Junior was covered for injuries he sustained when he crashed his father’s SUV into a tree while driving drunk.

Smith did not have a valid license, and had been told not to drive the vehicle. The insurance company tried to deny coverage because Smith broke the law when he took the wheel of his parent’s car.

A fight is brewing at the state Capitol over whether Michigan’s no-fault auto insurance law should be changed.

Backers of the legislation want drivers to be able to opt out of coverage that provides unlimited lifetime benefits for the most severely injured accident victims.

Pete Kuhnmuench, with the Insurance Institute of Michigan, says the option would save people money:

"We think putting more money back in the pockets of the consumers we think now is the right time to do that, given our economics," says Kuhnmuench.

A study commissioned by the measure’s opponents says most drivers would choose to underinsure themselves to save money.

The study says that would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

user H.L.I.T. / Flickr

We received a lot of reaction from people about our story on the potential consequences of eliminating the mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) part of Michigan's no-fault auto insurance.

This seemingly bureaucratic story about potential changes to Michigan's insurance laws has a lot of devastating human stories behind it.

This morning, Michigan Radio's Lester Graham released a story highlighting what could be at stake if changes are made to the personal injury protection portion of Michigan's no-fault insurance requirements.

Michigan Senators Joseph Hune (R-22nd district) and Virgil Smith (D-4th district) have sponsored legislation that would end the mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) coverage of Michigan's no-fault auto insurance law.

It means that Michigan drivers could choose what level of personal injury protection insurance they would like to buy.

Under the bills, drivers could cap their personal injury protection insurance at $50,000 - a fraction of the coverage needed should they be in serious accident.  It would also mean they would not pay into and not be eligible for funds from the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association fund, which makes the unlimited, lifetime benefits for people severely injured in a auto accident possible.

Now, a new poll sponsored by a group fighting these bills, the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault, finds the majority of Michigan voters don't want the changes.

From their press release:

The telephone survey of 600 voters by Chicago-based Glengariff Group found that 62 percent of those polled oppose limits on the amount of medical and rehabilitation care an accident victim could receive from their auto insurer; 27 percent support limits on medical and rehabilitation benefits and 11 percent were unsure. Of those opposed to limiting medical and rehabilitation auto injury benefits, 43 percent indicated strong opposition.

The Coalition's press release says "if auto insurers no longer covered injury costs for those suffering catastrophic injuries – which can cost tens of millions of dollars over the course of a lifetime – medical costs would shift from insurance companies and onto the taxpayer-funded Medicaid insurance program once family assets were depleted."

The bill to make changes to Michigan no-fault insurance law is expected to be taken up by the legislature early in September.

Robbie Howell / Flickr

The Michigan legislature is considering bills to end the state’s mandatory no-fault auto insurance.  Its supporters say it will give consumers more choices and help reduce cost of auto insurance.  Opponents say it’s a misguided effort that will have very little effect on insurance rates and could mean people who suffer injuries won’t get the help they need to fully recover. 

Kristin Howard was driving, taking an interstate to work on a summer day in 2006 when her life was changed forever.

Pages