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.

Earlier this month, we posted “Do I Have a Good Case?”, illustrating 8 inconsistent examples of how Michigan’s car accident injury laws unfairly impact real people, with identical injuries from car accidents.   All examples were based on actual cases, although one example (Gagne v. Schulte) stands out as so extreme, it has been questioned by our readers as “unrealistic”.

Sadly, that case was all too real.  Krista Gagne was 21 years old when her car was hit by a drunk driver.   Krista suffered very serious injuries, including a torn anterior cruciate ligament and medial meniscus that ultimately required reconstructive knee replacement surgery.  She lost over a year from work, had extensive physical therapy, and ultimately lost her job. 

On April 1st, 2008 the New York Times reported on the practice of automobile and disability insurance companies overloading the Social Security Administration by forcing people to apply for Social Security Disability.  It is a practice that Michigan social security disability lawyers and lawyers who specialize in helping people injured in car accidents already know too well. 

If someone is injured in a car crash in Michigan, the first party no fault insurer (the insurance company responsible for paying your no fault PIP insurance benefits) can literally force a person to repeatedly apply for social security disability (SSD), and they can suspend and even terminate no fault insurance benefits if that person refuses to apply or refuses to continually appeal the disability determination.  

On April 3rd, 2008, the conservative, 4-justice majority of the Michigan Supreme Court, referred to as the “Gang of Four” by many Michigan personal injury lawyers, wiped out all lawsuits and legal claims based on consortium in any car accident caused by government employees.  Parents, children and spouses are now barred from making any claim for loss of society, companionship, or consortium for the injury or death to a loved one if the car accident has been caused by a governmental employee.   This terrible decision is still limited to lawsuits against a governmental entity based upon the negligence of a governmental employee in causing a motor vehicle accident.  Michigan lawyers can still bring a loss of consortium claim for personal injury or death to a parent, spouse or child after car accidents not been caused by a governmental employee.
 
Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commission:
The decision, Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commission was authored by Justice Corrigan, the same justice who has ironically called herself a “champion of children,” despite authoring such previous travesties as Cameron v. ACIA.  Justice Corrigan ruled in Wesche that the parents of an unborn child killed in a car accident caused by a negligent driver employed by the government, cannot recover anything for the loss of society and companionship of their child. 

Last week, I was asked to teach a class at Cooley Law School on Michigan’s automobile accident law.   The class normally covers Michigan No Fault Law, but this class was on third-party claims – suing the insurance company of the person who causes an accident.

Below are some examples I used during the class to show law students how Michigan’s car accident threshold law of “serious impairment of body function” discriminates against different types of people, even when they have suffered identical personal injury from motor vehicle accidents.  The elderly, young children, those already disabled, and those who choose to stay at work in the home have a far more difficult time under our current automobile accident threshold law. 

On March 7, 2008 the world changed overnight for Michigan attendant care lawyers, the catastrophically injured and attendant care providers.  For the first time, the Michigan Supreme Court has extended the definition of “incurred” to include attendant care in a case called Burris v. Allstate Insurance Company.  Burris has the potential to wipe out hundreds of pending attendant care cases and jeopardize this important no fault benefit for many seriously injured people who currently depend upon it.

Our law firm recently responded to a question submitted online from a lawyer representing a person injured in a car accident.  I am re-posting that question and answer below to educate others about Michigan Car Accidents and the “Innocent Third Party Rule” designed to protect injury victims from fraud and misrepresentation.

Here’s the scenario:  
An innocent person is injured in a car accident; it’s discovered later that the person who caused the accident committed fraud with his/her auto insurance company; that insurance company then refuses to pay for injuries caused by its own negligent insured.  

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.     

On February 14, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled against State Farm Insurance Company on an important new uninsured motorist case (Suminski v State Farm).  State Farm, it seems, did not act like a good neighbor, which comes as no surprise to Michigan No Fault Attorneys.  The surprise with this case is that State Farm’s pattern of bad acts towards injured policy holders did not work in favor of the insurance company (this time).

There is a new auto new insurance company delay tactic in Michigan. Claims adjusters are putting innocent people “under investigation” to avoid or delay paying auto no fault insurance PIP benefits. These are lawful, reasonable, no fault claims made by people that were injured in Michigan car accidents. This blog explores how and why illegal delay tactics work for insurance companies, which companies deploy such tactics, what 3 options are available for injured people “under investigation”, and what Michigan Lawyers can do to help their clients.