Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 101

Thread: Michigan no fault reform bill

  1. #91
    Senior Member medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New London, WI USA
    Posts
    1,144
    I need help. My lawyer saysys that the new laws in Michigan have now made it so auto ins no longer has to pay food a vehicle. I have a power chair that I can not use outside my house because I no longer have a way to transport it. What am I suppose to do now? There is no public transportation, I can afford a modified vehicle, nor can I afford to rent one. Has anyone recently got a vehicle or are you trying to get a vehicle. I received one vehicle in 2006 that could transport my chair. I needed it replaced and bought my own vehicle. That vehicle is now in the junk yard. All I have is a car that I paid for. Anyone have info or help in getting a vehicle?

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by medic1
    I need help. My lawyer saysys that the new laws in Michigan have now made it so auto ins no longer has to pay food a vehicle. I have a power chair that I can not use outside my house because I no longer have a way to transport it. What am I suppose to do now? There is no public transportation, I can afford a modified vehicle, nor can I afford to rent one. Has anyone recently got a vehicle or are you trying to get a vehicle. I received one vehicle in 2006 that could transport my chair. I needed it replaced and bought my own vehicle. That vehicle is now in the junk yard. All I have is a car that I paid for. Anyone have info or help in getting a vehicle?
    My mobility dealer (Mobility Works Saginaw) said that no fault insurers are no longer willing to buy vehicles, they just want to pay for modifications. Is there an appeal system within the current law? When I worked as a rehab counselor the Michigan No Fault program was something the state could be proud of, a model nationwide. Now I think the insurers have been emboldened with a far right Republican legislature and the far right governor masquerading as a practical nerd. While these folks are in power they will do whatever the corporations wish and they want the end of no fault.

  3. #93

  4. #94

  5. #95
    Super Moderator Sue Pendleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    11,007
    Medic1,
    When I went through a second round of rehab there was a fireman there too with a SCI he received getting to work in DC. Turns out that because of the riots in the 1960's Washington DC insured all police and firemen on their way to and from work even if they lived in another state. Detroit had similar riots so you might look into some fine print laws about your occupation and your van problems.

  6. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientgimp

    My mobility dealer (Mobility Works Saginaw) said that no fault insurers are no longer willing to buy vehicles, they just want to pay for modifications. Is there an appeal system within the current law? When I worked as a rehab counselor the Michigan No Fault program was something the state could be proud of, a model nationwide. Now I think the insurers have been emboldened with a far right Republican legislature and the far right governor masquerading as a practical nerd. While these folks are in power they will do whatever the corporations wish and they want the end of no fault.
    I don't feel proud to be paying hundreds of dollars more per year so we can have generous benefits for one class of disabled person and line of pockets of hospitals by allowing higher payments for auto related injuries. This law hurts many people who would have better use for the money than a per vehicle fee. I can't a afford a new $50K van to haul my wife to a few appointments nor do I want to drive an 18 year old, 12 mpg guzzler to work every day. Because of my wife's misfortune to get MS we get to pay an extra $15/month in insurance to keep a van around for maybe one trip a month. How is it fair for someone worse off and who gets squat from the system to pay upwards of $1/mile for a special tax to benefit only disabled injured in car accidents. This is dumb law that I would vote to repeal it in a minute. If you want to buy high limit coverage that's your business.

  7. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by MSspouse
    I don't feel proud to be paying hundreds of dollars more per year so we can have generous benefits for one class of disabled person and line of pockets of hospitals by allowing higher payments for auto related injuries. This law hurts many people who would have better use for the money than a per vehicle fee. I can't a afford a new $50K van to haul my wife to a few appointments nor do I want to drive an 18 year old, 12 mpg guzzler to work every day. Because of my wife's misfortune to get MS we get to pay an extra $15/month in insurance to keep a van around for maybe one trip a month. How is it fair for someone worse off and who gets squat from the system to pay upwards of $1/mile for a special tax to benefit only disabled injured in car accidents. This is dumb law that I would vote to repeal it in a minute. If you want to buy high limit coverage that's your business.
    We have been through this before in another post....So lets do it again.

    If your wife was involved in a car accident....or you get in a car wreck in the next week and have brain damage or a SCI you would sing a different tune my friend.

    You can always buy disability ins. before you get hurt or a sickness and nursing home coverage.... but you could not afford it.

    Your wife gets SSDI am sure....how would you like it if they stop paying for something you paid in for?

    I am happy to pay 200.00 a year for that kind of coverage per vehicle.

    The ins. companies have been misleading the people of the state of Michigan over this.

    Why won't they open the books of the MCAA?....before they ask for anything?

    Here is how they pay medical bills.....they send it to a adjuster.....who sends it to a medical audit......then they pay what the audit says to pay which is close to what medicare would pay.

    How much does the ins. co. pays for the adjuster and medical audit they pay?....The MCCA does.

    Guess who gets that over 15 billion dollars if they do away with it?

    The ins. co. gets to keep it....which is not even there money to start with.

    The real problem is the ins.co. runs the MCAA...which should have been run by someone else....the way the run it now they have the fox guarding the hen house and nobody is watching the fox.

    Air bags saves lives....as we are told by who.....the government?

    But they cause a lot more severe disabling injuries that can last the rest of you life.

    Look up degloving...burns....lost of fingers and hands and all kinds of stuff that really raise the price of injuries.

    You just look at the bad and not the good no fault does.

    Do you ever click on the links in my other post to see the good?

    Art




  8. #98
    In my last post I said MCAA and meant MCCA as most are sure of that.....Here is some great info.....

    http://www.michiganautolaw.com/auto-...dbeab-75045265

  9. #99

  10. #100
    Can you beleve this one....

    State Farm’s treatment of wheelchair-bound man so outrageously ‘unbelievable’ it couldn’t be made up
    July 23, 2014 by Steven Gursten

    State Farm denies No Fault benefits and surgery to George Veness because he didn’t have auto insurance for wheelchair, even though such insurance doesn’t even exist!

    Man in motorized wheelchairTruth is sometimes stranger than fiction. This case is so ridiculous and outrageous that some readers have questioned that State Farm (and Farm Bureau) would deny No Fault benefits to a paralyzed man who was hit by a car.

    The car accident victim, George Veness, is being denied No Fault benefits by State Farm because he didn’t have No Fault auto insurance on the motorized wheelchair he was using to cross Bernice Street in Centerline, Michigan, when he was struck by a car being driven by another Macomb County man.

    Well, I don’t want to disappoint those folks who said on our Facebook page that this sounds so outrageous and “unbelievable” that it might be made up. I was interviewed as an attorney expert today in Bloomberg Business News on this case, “Insurers Claim Granny Scooters Must Be Covered – Just Like Cars.”

    And here comes further proof.

    In a Macomb County No Fault lawsuit for PIP benefits, which I’ve been closely covering in recent blog posts, State Farm is denying coverage to Mr. Veness because he is, State Farm argues, an “uninsured” driver. Being found to be an “uninsured driver” under Michigan’s No Fault automobile law, would allow State Farm to deny his claim.

    Where does Farm Bureau come in?

    Also under Michigan’s auto law, treating Mr. Veness as an “uninsured” motorist would also bar Mr. Veness from suing the at-fault driver (i.e., the driver of the car that hit him) for his pain and suffering compensation. And it would allow Mr. Veness to be sued by Farm Bureau, the insurance company for the at–fault driver, to sue Mr. Veness for his accident-related medical costs, lost wages and vehicle damage. Farm Bureau has also filed a motion seeking to have the Court treat Mr. Veness as an “uninsured driver” of his wheelchair.

    The key to State Farm’s outrageous legal argument is that Mr. Veness’s motorized wheelchair is under Michigan’s laws considered a motor vehicle, thus, Mr. Veness should’ve had No Fault auto insurance for it.

    Here is State Farm’s argument (from its actual Motion for Summary Disposition):
    •Mr. Veness “is not entitled to PIP benefits” because “he was the owner of the scooter involved in the accident and that scooter failed to have in effect [a valid No Fault auto insurance policy].”
    •No Fault auto insurance required by Michigan’s No Fault law “must be in effect for all ‘motor vehicles’ …”
    •“Plaintiff’s scooter falls within [the No Fault law’s] definition of a motor vehicle because it is a vehicle, it was operated or designed for operation on a public highway, has power other than muscular power, and has more than two wheels.”
    •“Plaintiff’s failure to obtain PIP insurance on his scooter means that MCL 500.3113(b) bars him from recovering PIP benefits from Defendant State Farm.”

    If that’s not outlandish enough for you, then consider State Farm’s explanation for how Mr. Veness’s use of his motorized wheelchair to cross the street amounted to his having “operated” it “on a public highway”:
    •Mr. Veness “was in the middle of Bernice Street when” the at-fault driver, i.e., the off-duty police officer, struck Mr. Veness and his motorized wheelchair.
    •Bernice Street was a “public highway” because “Bernice Street was a publically maintained street open to vehicular travel.”
    •“Thus,” because Mr. Veness’s crossing of Bernice Street resulted in his having been physically “on” Bernice Street, “Plaintiff operated his scooter upon a public highway.”

    The sheer lunacy of State Farm’s legal argument is driven home by State Farm’s guilt-inspired acknowledgement of the real and significant context in which Mr. Veness’s wheelchair-car crash occurred.

    Following its syllogistic illogic above, State Farm quipped:


    “The fact that Plaintiff’s crossing the street may have been merely incidental and for the purpose of connecting with another sidewalk is immaterial …”

    Never mind the fact there was no evidence that Mr. Veness was driving in a traffic lane or was otherwise part of the normal flow of traffic.

    And, later, when it was toying with and, thus, building up the false significance of how the Motor Vehicle Code defines “highway,” State Farm advocates that:


    “It cannot be disputed that … [Mr. Veness’ motorized wheelchair was] on a street or highway, which is defined in the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code as ‘the entire width between boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.’ Even if Plaintiff was operating his scooter in the crosswalk, that area of the street was within the ‘entire width’ of the publically maintained area for vehicular travel.”

    Additionally, State Farm argued that Mr. Veness couldn’t get No Fault benefits by arguing that his motorized wheelchair met one of the statutory definitions of a “motorcycle, moped, farm tractor, implement of husbandry, or ORV.”

    It’s sad that, with all the time the auto insurer spent with its nose in the Motor Vehicle Code and the No Fault law, State Farm failed to find one insurance policy that the giant insurer actually offers to insure motorized wheelchairs and scooters (it doesn’t). As far as I can tell, no insurance company in Michigan actually offers the insurance that State Farm is saying Mr. Veness should have had to cover his wheelchair.

    And, equally sad, State Farm also ignores the one statute that most accurately and appropriately applies to Mr. Veness’s case:


    “A vehicle operator who approaches a person using a wheelchair … at a crosswalk or any other pedestrian crossing shall take necessary precautions to avoid accident or injury to the person using the wheelchair … A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor.” (MCL 257.612(4))

    This entry was tagged Tags: George Veness, motorized wheelchair, no-fault benefits, State Farm





    Blog Author Steven M. Gursten

    Michigan Lawyer of the Year


    Best Lawyers in America


    Top 100 Trial Lawyer


    Voted in top 100 out of over 50,000 Michigan lawyers


    President, Motor Vehicle Trial Lawyers Association


    Past-President, AAJ Truck Accident Lawyer Group


    Michigan Super Lawyer




    Follow Us
    Facebook
    eve this one...
    Art

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •