Have you been injured? you may have a case.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
GET A FREE CONSULTATION

Why Johnson v. Wausau encourages insurance adjusters in Michigan to lie about No-Fault benefits

April 9, 2009 by Steven M. Gursten

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

Auto attorney video: Attendant care

[Community Guidelines]

Need more information?
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Related Posts
Steve Gursten talks to Fox 2 Detroit about CO Poisoning lawsuit
Steve Gursten talks to Fox 2 Detroit about CO Poisoning at Hickory Hollow
February 11, 2019
Michigan Auto Law’s 2018 Year in Review
December 26, 2018
Hewitt tells WZZM about FREE drivers license reinstatement
December 3, 2018
Share
Tweet
Share
Pin
Email