(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
Uncategorized
How auto insurance firms are exploiting Michigan drivers
Guest opinion in The Oakland Press, on Michigan’s worst auto insurance companies and how they’re mistreating car accident victims and consumers
Michigan’s auto insurance industry has been taking advantage of Michigan drivers – and Steve Gursten, partner of Michigan Auto Law, is telling Oakland County readers about it.
Gursten, a renowned auto accident lawyer, wrote an opinion editorial to get the word out on the top 6 worst auto insurance companies, with examples of how accident victims are being abused. Said Gursten, “Putting blind faith in what the insurance industry says is best for Michigan drivers is a dangerous mistake.”
Here’s the full article in The Oakland Press: Insurance firms exploit state drivers
May 29, 2011
Related information:
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
Michigan No-Fault lawyer on “Post-Kreiner makeover”
New objectively manifested standard – car accident impairment must be visually apparent
Steven M. Gursten is interviewed by Michigan Lawyers Weekly on the standard for determining whether an impaiment from an auto accident is “objectively manifested” for purposes of the no-fault act’s “serious impairment of body function” threshold. Steve says the definition for objective manifestation in Netter v. Bowman is very favorable to the plaintiffs bar. This is because it will allow a plaintiff whose injuries would otherwise defy detection or proof by objective testing to satisfy the objective manifestation requirement so long as a doctor can give a medical explanation for what is causing the condition.
October 9, 2006
More News Articles
