(800) 777-0028
-
Real Stories From Our Clients
Read over 200 testimonials from real clients throughout Michigan
-
Your 3 Potential Cases
You Have 3 Potential Auto Accident Cases in Michigan
-
In the News
“Arguably the Best in the Business.” - Michigan's Lawyers Weekly
-
Do I Have a Case?
Do I Have a Case?
-
Legal Awards & Honors
-
Free Legal Guides
FREE Books & Legal Guides -
What makes us different?
See what makes Michigan Auto Law different
Including a chart that compares top verdicts & settlements and third-party ratings for legal excellence
- Top Auto Verdicts & Settlements
-
100% Satisfaction Guarantee
The Michigan Auto Law 100% Client Satisfaction Guarantee:
If you aren't completely satified, you can walk away with no obligation - and without paying a dime in attorney fees
Attendant care
Michigan Court of Appeals ruling protects dishonest insurer instead of child with traumatic brain injury
Steven M. Gursten editorializes in The Oakland Press why Johnson v. Wausau enables your auto insurance company to legally lie to you about No-Fault benefits, such as attendant care
Who is the Michigan Court of Appeals protecting? A dishonest auto insurance company, or a baby with traumatic brain injury? No-fault insurance attorney Steve Gursten discusses a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling which denied the caregiver of a baby (who was seriously injured in a car accident) attendant care benefits, even though her insurance company lied to her by insisting there were no more No-Fault benefits available.
The Court’s reasoning is that any accident victim should check out the accuracy of anything and everything an insurance claims adjuster says by consulting with a lawyer.
Here’s the editorial in The Oakland Press: Ruling protects auto insurer instead of child with brain injury
June 17, 2009
Related information:
Why your insurance company can now lie to you and get away with it
Michigan Auto Law in Crain’s: Insurance companies can’t mask No-Fault benefits
Steve Gursten opines on car accident case where child with traumatic brain injury was deliberately denied the attendant care benefits she was entitled to by her auto insurance company
Johnson v. Wausau Insurance Co. is a Michigan Court of Appeals case regarding an auto insurance company adjuster who lied to save money from paying attendant care insurance benefits to the caregivers of a 10-month-old girl with a severe traumatic brain injury from a car accident — and got away with it.
Crain’s Detroit Business covers traumatic brain injury lawyer Steve Gursten’s blog and editorial material about the attendant care case, tackling the issue of whether an insurance company can misrepresent the No-Fault benefits it owes to a customer, so long as the customer can get the truth elsewhere. Gursten says it’s one of the most horrible cases he’s ever read as a lawyer, and it creates detrimental public policy for Michigan drivers and their families.
Here’s the Crain’s Detroit Business editorial: Can an auto insurance provider mask No-Fault (attendant care) benefits in Michigan?
June 5, 2009
Related information:
Michigan Court of Appeals decision allows No-Fault insurers to get away with lying
Insurance attorney editorializes about “one of the most disturbing” attendant care cases, Johnson v. Wausau, which creates dangerous public policy for auto accident victims
Insurance attorney Steve Gursten writes an editorial for the Detroit Legal News about a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling regarding attendant care benefits called Johnson v. Wausau. In Johnson, the court denied a child (who sustained serious traumatic brain injury in a car accident) attendant care, even though her insurance company lied to her caregiver by insisting there were no more No-Fault benefits available.
The Court’s reasoning was that auto any accident victim should check out the accuracy of everything an insurance claims adjuster says by consulting with a lawyer. Gursten says because of Johnson v. Wausau, insurance adjusters are now legally allowed to lie to their customers about what benefits are available following car accidents.
Take a look at the full editorial in the Detroit Legal News: Michigan Court of Appeals decision allows insurers to get away with lying
Related information:
Why your insurance company can now lie to you and get away with it
Why Johnson v. Wausau encourages insurance adjusters in Michigan to lie about No-Fault benefits
Auto lawyer Steve Gursten writes a rebuttal opinion editorial in the Detroit Legal News about a Michigan Court of Appeals case that denied attendant care benefits to a child with traumatic brain injury
Who’s the Michigan Court of Appeals protecting? A dishonest auto insurance company, or a baby with traumatic brain injury? Auto attorney Steve Gursten discusses a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling which denied a child who was seriously injured in a car accident attendant care benefits, even though her insurance company lied to her caregiver by insisting there were no more No-Fault benefits available.
The Court’s reasoning was that any accident victim should check out the accuracy of everything an insurance claims adjuster says by consulting with an attorney. Now Gursten responds to a lawyer who disagrees with his first editorial, Decision allows No-Fault insurers to get away with lying.
Take a look at the opinion piece in the Detroit Legal News: Why Johnson v. Wausau encourages insurance adjusters in Michigan to lie
Related information:
Why your insurance company can now lie to you and get away with it
More News Articles
