We have frequently discussed many of the simply outrageous legal decisions that have been issued in recent years by four justices of the Michigan Supreme Court.  Decisions such as Kreiner, Cameron, and Devillers have essentially destroyed the fundamental principles underlying Michigan’s no fault auto insurance system over the past decade.

Reprint of Steven M. Gursten’s Letter to Michigan Lawyers Weekly

Rarely does the Michigan Lawyers Weekly completely miss the point of an important case, but I feel compelled to respectfully suggest that your recent story on Benefiel v. Auto Owners Insurance Company¹ did exactly this.  

Benefiel is the most important automobile negligence case to be decided since the Michigan Supreme Court decided Kreiner v. Fischer.²   Benefiel is a published decision, and it may hopefully help lawyers and judges better understand Michigan’s chaotic threshold law.     

Steven Gursten will be speaking on February 12, 2008 at Cooley Law School.  Steve will be speaking to the law students on future legal careers in personal injury and insurance law.  The lecture is being presented through the Career and Professional Development Office of Cooley Law School, in Lansing Michigan. 

Steven Gursten will be moderating and speaking at the Litigating Truck Collision Cases program this Friday and Saturday, in New Orleans, LA.  The seminar is presented through the American Association for Justice, formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. 

The program is an advanced litigation and trial skills seminar intended to help prepare lawyers to better understand how to litigate truck accident injury cases.   This program is only open to attorneys who represent injury victims.

Topics will include:

• Understanding NHTSA – National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• Relevant Case law for lawyers handling truck accident cases

I was interviewed today by the Michigan Lawyers Weekly about an important new auto accident decision released December 27, 2007, called Benefiel v. Auto Owners Insurance Company.  For Michigan lawyers who litigate automobile accident cases, this is the first case to analyze what the Michigan Supreme Court meant when it wrote in Kreiner v. Fischer that the relevant period of inquiry after a car accident is a person’s “whole life,” finding: “we do not require that every aspect of a person’s life must be affected in order to satisfy the tort threshold…Rather, in a quite distinct proposition, we merely require that the whole life be considered in determining what satisfies this threshold, i.e., whether an impairment “affects the person’s general ability to lead his or her life.”  Kreiner at 133 fn 16. 

On December 4, 2007, the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jones v. Olson.  This has many Michigan lawyers predicting an end for all but the most catastrophic car accident injury cases in this state.

Many personal injury lawyers already familiar with this divided Court have questioned why the Michigan Supreme Court would wish to grant leave on this case, except to obviously reverse the lower court decision.  The Court of Appeals had previously found that plaintiff Greg Jones, who was injured and disabled from work after his car accident for roughly six months, but who then made a very good recovery, should be allowed a day in court to pursue a claim for pain and suffering damages under Michigan’s automobile accident threshold law. 

Judges, you’ve got this Kreiner case all wrong. 
We need to take another look at this “threshold creep” in Michigan’s auto accident threshold law, where each “Kreiner casualty” seems worse than the last.  We have to look at some of these decisions, cases like Jones v. Jones or Gagne v. Schulte, that are leading to such shocking and absurd results. Things are simply getting out of hand.

Not just us lawyers who are completely bewildered.   
As of today, I’ve counted 200 or so unpublished Michigan automobile accident injury cases where the defendant insurance company has won, and 30 or so auto accident cases where the Plaintiff has won.

As an attorney, one of the toughest questions I face is “Why was I told I don’t have a case?”   Unfortunately, I hear this all too often.   Two weeks ago, on November 15, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals passed judgment on Cynthia Jones.  Now, I expect to face this question more and more from victims whose lives have been shattered by car accidents.

This letter to the Detroit Free Press was written by Wayne Miller, an excellent lawyer, friend and colleague practicing law in Southfield, Michigan.   Wayne and I serve together on the Michigan Auto No-Fault Committee for the Michigan Association for Justice.  In addition to teaching law at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, Wayne specializes in handling large provider claims, where he and the other lawyers in his office represent hospitals and doctors around Michigan.  This is what Wayne recently wrote:

On October 4, 2007, I spoke at the ICLE No Fault Update Seminar in Plymouth, Michigan.  My topic this year was “The Plaintiff Lawyers Perspective on Insurance and Defense Medical Examinations,” and in particular to discuss the recent case of Muci v. State Farm, 478 Mich 178 (2007).  I was also asked to talk about strategies lawyers should employ in dealing with these compulsory defense medical evaluations in auto accident cases.

The audience at these seminars predominantly consists of defense lawyers and insurance adjusters.   Most of these lawyers and adjusters were already familiar with Muci.  It has already been widely heralded to lawyers and insurance company adjusters alike as an important “defense win” for the insurance industry in Michigan (as if they need another one).