Which auto law applies to cases filed under Kreiner, before McCormick v. Carrier?

As I’ve previously discussed in my blogs about McCormick v. Carrier, I believe McCormick will apply retroactively to all auto accident cases that had been filed before the decision was released by the Michigan Supreme Court on August 1, 2010. In addition to writing on McCormick, I’ve also spoken on the topic to several hundred auto accident lawyers at the No-Fault Institute seminar and to the State Bar Negligence Section seminar in Grand Rapids, Michigan, last fall.

Now it’s official.

Personal injury lawyer discusses new legislators and the immunity bills for various big business they will be presented and how the right to jury trial could be harmed

This is the fourth section of my partner David Christensen’s president’s column for the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan. On Wednesday, David discussed — in his blog Who will win most cases this term, personal injury attorneys or defense lawyers? — the disaster resulting from big business contribution to the Michigan Supreme Court elections, and his hope that Justice Mary Beth Kelly can temper the polarization of the Court.

Accident attorney discusses the aftermath of drunk driving accidents in response to a reader reflecting on repentance

I’m continuing my Wednesday blog posts from real clients and readers with a comment from Nancy, who wrote in response to our blog about a young man who was seriously injured in car accident caused by a drunk driver. In this case, the drunk driver faced no civil consequences for breaking the law and causing serious personal injury to this innocent young man.

Steve Gursten of Michigan Auto Law will teach other injury attorneys and negligence lawyers at the State Bar of Michigan seminar in Grand Rapids, exactly what the new Michigan Supreme Court case McCormick v. Carrier means

Over the past two months, nearly every personal injury lawyer, insurance claims adjuster, and trial judge has been scrambling trying to figure out what McCormick v. Carrier, weighing in at more than 100 pages, really means for people injured in car accidents in Michigan, as well as the attorneys who fight for them.

No-Fault insurance lawyer shares additional tips on what Michigan’s new auto accident law means for car accident victims and personal injury attorneys

This is part two on topics and ideas that I’ll be covering today and tomorrow at the No-Fault Institute Seminar for the Michigan Association for Justice in Southfield. Yesterday, I discussed the objective manifestation requirement and the need to change Michigan’s jury instruction, now that the definition of objective manifestation has been changed with McCormick v. Carrier.  I also discussed how personal injury attorneys would do well to still provide objective proof of physical injuries at trial, even if the legal requirement for doing so has changed after McCormick.

With new Michigan Supreme Court case McCormick v. Carrier, auto accident victims could have a second chance to bring pain and suffering lawsuits

If you are one of hundreds of Michigan residents who has been seriously hurt in a car accident that was not your fault, but you were still told you had “no case” by a Michigan lawyer because of the state’s difficult auto accident threshold law, your important legal rights have now been restored with the Michigan Supreme Court’s new auto law, McCormick v. Carrier.

Check out Michigan Auto Law’s video on why you may have a car accident case now:

Auto accident attorney interprets Michigan’s new auto law, which could give hundreds of car accident victims with serious personal injuries a second chance to have their pain and suffering cases heard in court

I’d like to share the exciting news.  Sometime between now and Sunday, the Michigan Supreme Court will release McCormick v. Carrier (Rodney McCormick v. Larry Carrier and Allied Automotive Group, Indemnitor of General Motors Corp.).

McCormick is the case that Michigan auto accident victims, lawyers on both sides and almost all trial court judges have been hoping will finally reverse the shocking unfairness that has resulted under Kreiner v. Fischer.

Auto accident lawyers featured in the State Bar of Michigan Negligence Law Section Quarterly, contending why McCormick must bring common sense to Michigan’s auto law

David E. Christensen

The Spring 2010 State Bar of Michigan Negligence Law Section Quarterly was recently sent to several thousand negligence lawyers who represent plaintiffs and defendants in Michigan lawsuits. In it is an article by Michigan Auto Law attorneys David Christensen and Alison Tomak on the Flint auto accident case of McCormick v. Carrier (Rodney McCormick v. Larry Carrier and Allied Automotive Group, Indemnitor of General Motors Corp.). Dave and Alison’s article also includes a brief summary of the arguments made in the Negligence Law Section’s own amicus brief filed in this case before the Michigan Supreme Court.

The long-awaited Michigan Supreme Court hearing on McCormick v. Carrier (Rodney McCormick v. Larry Carrier and Allied Automotive Group, Indemnitor of General Motors Corp.) was Tuesday. McCormick is the Flint auto accident case that will hopefully change Michigan’s long-broken auto threshold law, Kreiner v. Fischer — and restore the rights of injured auto accident victims.

Kreiner is a 2004 Michigan Supreme Court decision that interpreted the no-fault act’s “serious impairment of body function” statute. It establishes the precondition plaintiffs must meet before they can sue for non-economic damages in such a way that many people who suffer serious injuries and who miss months from work, lose their right to bring car accident claims.

When Susan Al-Maliki was seriously injured in a rear-end car accident, she never thought it would be a Wayne County Circuit Court judge in Detroit who would pose the greatest obstacle to her pain and suffering claim reaching a jury.

Without warning – and without providing her an opportunity to respond – Judge Warfield Moore Jr. dismissed Ms. Al-Maliki’s auto-tort lawsuit for a reason that he alone chose to focus on.