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 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.

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).

The consequences of driving a car without auto no fault insurance in Michigan are exceptionally harsh.  A recent case, released on January 29, 2008, illustrates just how severe these consequences will be.  

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. 

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.