Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 101

Thread: Michigan no fault reform bill

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientgimp View Post
    Some reporters I have read were shocked that Gov Snyder did not veto the helmetless rider law since statistics (from other states) seem to bear out that deaths will rise and that Medicaid funds will be depleted by former riders w catastrophic head injuries. Among some circles, Snyder has a reputation for being a common sense politician, not an idealogue. That's what makes me think this (no helmet law) and ending no fault are a package deal done in a backroom by the Republican hierarchy sponsored by insurance company lobbyists. The no helmet law is no skin off the insurance companies' backs because the required amount of extra insurance is a drop in the bucket compared to actual medical costs while their savings from killing no fault will be huge.
    Snyder ran Gateway puters into the ground looks like he is going to try this in Michigan.
    I know a lot of people next vote will vote all democrat.
    They are sick of what republican are trying to do in this state without voters approval on serious issues without being able to vote on them.
    Getting rid of no fault is gona be a lot harder as they have a lawsuit going on about the MCCA and a lot of resistance from a lot of people and groups.
    People come first not profits.
    8 percent of motorcycle accidents went way over 500,000 dollars so they dangled that helmetless law out there and they bit on it and gave everything away.

  2. #62
    Optional Personal Injury Protection (PIP) for Motorcyclists

    A motorcycle owner can still purchase additional optional contractual insurances, such as optional no-fault coverage, which includes medical benefits and wage loss. There are few motorcycle owners who purchase this coverage in Michigan. Keep in mind this is not the same coverage as provided by regular auto no fault (PIP) insurance.

    Uninsured and Underinsured Coverage for Motorcycle Riders

    A motorcycle owner can also purchase other insurance, such as uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Uninsured motorist coverage (UM) and underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) provide a valuable source of legal recovery when someone is injured in an auto accident by another driver who is uninsured or does not have adequate insurance. Without a UM or UIM policy, a driver or passengers injured by an uninsured or underinsured motorist will have no source of legal recovery, other than filing a lawsuit against the at-fault driver for his personal assets. Our motorcycle accident attorneys strongly recommend you contact your insurance agent to purchase these additional coverages if you are an owner or registrant of a motorcycle in Michigan

  3. #63
    Why are we always focusing on the pittance paid of 175.00 per vehicle for the year. Which pays for the best coverage available. When it is the comprehensive and collision coverage that is out of control. Why are we not looking at why those charges are out of control and in the case of Michigan (a file & sign State) can charge whatever they want and have surpassed all states in profits.


  4. #64
    Brain Injury Association of Michigan Files Suit Against the MCCA

    Wednesday, June 20, 2012 Tom Constand
    StarrConstand Communication
    (248) 417-4119

    Download Press Release

    Brain Injury Association of Michigan Files Suit Against MCCA
    For Access to Guarded Financial Information

    Information critical in assessing validity of insurance industry claims of
    imminent MCCA insolvency; millions of Michigan auto-insured motorists affected.

    LANSING– The Brain Injury Association of Michigan (BIAMI) today filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) to obtain vital financial information, specific claimant records and actuarial standards under the principles of Michigan’s common law on behalf of all auto-insured citizens and all catastrophically-injured survivors across the state. The information is critical in revealing to Michigan citizens and Lansing lawmakers the rationale behind the insurance industry’s claims that Michigan’s current auto no-fault system is financially unsustainable and that the MCCA will soon go bankrupt without capping benefits and enforcing strict cost controls.

    To date, the MCCA has continued to assert its claim of exemption from all attempts to secure this essential information – including the recently-filed FOIA lawsuit by the Coalition to Protect Auto No-Fault (CPAN) – effectively blocking the ability of all concerned parties to assess the no-fault system, address its shortfalls, and collaborate on appropriate solutions to fix the system without sacrificing no-fault’s core principle of immediate access to appropriate, unlimited care for catastrophically-injured victims.

    The suit filed by the BIAMI, however, is based on the principle of Michigan’s common law, which allows for persons of demonstrable interest to have access to records of activity. The specific plaintiffs represented by the BIAMI in turn represent individuals who have or will sustain catastrophic injuries as a result of motor vehicle accidents, as well as the millions of auto policy holders who are and have been underwriting the lion’s share of catastrophic care in Michigan.

    “The information from MCCA records will facilitate the understanding of these issues by catastrophically injured victims, policy holders, as well as individual Michigan legislators,” said BIAMI president Mike Dabbs. “To not provide access to this information to the very individuals who would be affected most by its purported consequences is tantamount to a CEO of a publicly-traded company refusing to share financial information with the shareholders after making forward-looking statements about imminent financial insolvency. Informational blackout is not exactly a way to win the public trust.”

    In fact, common law makes clear that access to records hinges on the nature of the interest - not the nature of the record. As an example, shareholders of a private corporation can examine the books of that private corporation in order to gauge the value of their shares and protect their financial interest.

    "This lawsuit is about transparency and access to information," added Dabbs. "The MCCA is a public body that collects millions of dollars from millions of Michigan citizens, including our state lawmakers, and we have a right to see the records of how that money is managed.”

    About the Brain Injury Association of Michigan

    The Brain Injury Association of Michigan (BIAMI) was founded in 1981 by family members, persons with brain injury and persons in the brain injury profession. At the time, brain injuries were largely misunderstood and services for those affected were hard to find. In the years since its inception, much progress has been made in understanding and treating brain injuries, and BIAMI has expanded its focus to include prevention programs. The BIAMI’s mission is to enhance the lives of those affected by brain injury through education, advocacy, research and local support groups and to reduce the incidence of brain injury through prevention.


    Brain Injury Association of Michigan
    7305 Grand River, Suite 100
    Brighton, MI 48114-7379


    Go Back

  5. #65
    Senior Member medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    New London, WI USA
    thank you for keeping us posted. It has been some time since i have looked at this thread. I have not pushed hard for my van as of yet, but it is coming. Hopefully by this fall. I have some other financial stuff going on I need to take care of before I can concentrate on this. But again thank you for keeping us updated.

    U are correct in stating they hope the bikers die. They figure it will be cheaper if they are not wearing a helmet as they will likely die and not end up with a severe head injury or a broken neck and surviviing and having to pay benefits. If you ask bikers, that is what they also want. Very sad if u ask me.

  6. #66
    Commentary: Cutting insurance benefits in Michigan still won't cut costs
    By Melvin Butch Hollowell

    When auto no-fault went into effect in 1973, one of the key promises was that rates would decrease because of restrictions on litigation. That has proved to be an empty promise for too many Michiganians, particularly in Detroit. Our $5,000 per year average annual premium is the nation's highest, causing an estimated 60 percent of the city's motorists to drive without insurance.

    But, while I agree that we need "creative and cost-effective solutions" to this problem, as Rep. Shanelle Jackson stated in her recent viewpoint column, I respectfully disagree with the idea she proposes: giving up our life-saving auto insurance benefits without receiving any cost reductions in return.

    Insurance companies are pushing to allow drivers the choice of personal injury protection (PIP) coverage between $500,000 and $5 million. That would make sense if we were able to choose our level of injury in an accident. Unfortunately that's impossible, and it will lead to the most injured drivers paying out-of-pocket once they hit their limit.

    Under cross-examination before the House Insurance Committee, insurance industry leaders admitted that their proposal to cut injury benefits would not lower insurance rates. Furthermore, insurers did not deny that capping auto injury benefits would shift the costs of caring for more severely injured accident victims onto the Medicaid system, costing state taxpayers millions more each year. So under this plan consumers get no rate relief and taxpayers get hit with a tax increase.

    Instead of tearing down the best auto insurance system in the country, let's focus on some more practical solutions, starting with transparency. We need to know how rates are set in the first place since we are mandated by law to buy auto insurance.

    The Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association was created by state law in 1978 to reimburse insurers for costs of auto-related injuries exceeding $500,000. The MCCA is funded by an annual assessment charged to every vehicle, which increased this year to $175. Even though consumers foot the bill, we have no voice in how the MCCA is run (its voting board is made up entirely of insurance executives), we cannot ask for an independent audit, and it is shielded from both the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act. Until a law is passed that requires the MCCA to be open for public examination, insurers will continue to claim that our no-fault system is broken and drivers will continue to get stuck with higher bills.

    Lawmakers should also give the Michigan Insurance Commissioner stronger powers to regulate insurance companies. Drivers are required by law to carry auto insurance, yet the Insurance Commissioner does not have to give prior approval before insurance companies issue rate increases. Nor does he have the power to determine whether consumers have been overcharged and issue refunds.

    Finally, the unfair practice of using credit scores to set auto insurance rates must be banned. One's financial situation has no bearing on whether that person is a safe driver. This predatory practice affects impoverished urban areas like Detroit far more than other areas of the state and it must be stopped. Any one of these solutions — increased transparency, giving more oversight to the Insurance Commissioner or banning credit scoring — is far more likely to bring rate relief to Michigan drivers than cutting injury benefits.

    Melvin Butch Hollowell serves as General Counsel of the Detroit Branch NAACP and is the former Insurance Consumer Advocate for the state of Michigan.


  7. #67
    HB 5701 was introduced late on Tuesday afternoon of May 29th and passed out of committee by the House Insurance Committee on Thursday, May 31th. As a result, CPAN had little time to review the proposal. Our 25 member consumer advocate and health care provider organizations had numerous questions and concerns with HB 5701, which resulted in our submission of a card at the hearing in opposition to the bill as currently written.
    CPAN has publically stated numerous times to policy makers and the insurance industry that it condemns fraud in the auto no-fault system and that improving anti-fraud efforts should be a goal we all share if we remain committed to the preservation of Michigan’s auto no-fault system. Additionally, any anti-fraud measures enacted by the legislature must balance efforts to combat fraudulent claims submitted by unscrupulous individuals and as well as stopping the wrongful denial of legitimate claims or acts of bad faith on the part of the insurance industry. HB 5701 as currently written does not achieve that necessary balance nor provide transparency to the policy holder that is ultimately paying the new $3.00 annual assessment.
    Our concerns are the following:
    1. Lack of Transparency – Under Chapter 61, Section 6104(2), the newly created Michigan Automobile Fraud and Theft Prevention Authority, which is currently the Michigan Theft Prevention Authority, is housed in the department of the Michigan State Police. The bill language would transfer this authority and its assets into the Michigan Auto Placement Facility and strike it from being subject to the FOIA requirements, which it currently falls under. As a cornerstone priority, CPAN has worked very hard for transparency in the auto no-fault system. This is the crux of the debate with the MCCA and its assumptions of unsustainability which is why CPAN is currently in the Ingham County Circuit Court challenging the MCCA’s FOIA exemption. CPAN strongly believes this new authority should be subject to FOIA, just as the current authority is today.
    2. The Michigan Automobile Fraud and Theft Prevention Authority Board Composition – the new board will be made up of a 15 member board, of which nine members represent the auto insurance industry. There is only one member of the general public. The current authority had a board of seven members with two being policy holders. CPAN believes that the authority should be expanded to include at least four providers (two of which should be from the rehabilitation
    community) to provide valuable input and expertise to the Authority. This change would make it consistent with the current make-up of the Auto Theft Prevention Authority with regard to insurance representatives and the remaining board members.
    3. Transparency of the $3.00 Assessment – like the current theft prevention assessment, this new annual assessment on each insurer will likely be passed on to each policy holder. CPAN supports a requirement that insurers be transparent with this assessment and clearly report it on the policy holder’s declaration page.
    4. Sunset Provision – an annual assessment totaling $21 million for both fraud and auto theft should include a sunset provision of 3 years so that policy makers, regulators, law enforcement agencies along with the general public can determine whether this amount of the annual assessment is sufficient or excessive, and if it is providing the anticipated cost savings. Given that the bill states that the assessment is not funded by the State, there is no way for policy makers to make an effective determination or adjust the assessment without a sunset mechanism.
    5. Balanced Approach to Anti Fraud Measures – currently the bill defines fraud under Section 4503. This does not include wrongful denial or bad faith actions by the insurer to a provider or consumer. There is a significant concern on behalf of both providers and consumers of such actions by insurers which was demonstrated during multiple hearings in the House Insurance Committee a few years ago. If the legislature is going to approve the assessment of $3.00 per car culminating into an annual fund of $21 million to fight fraud, provisions should be included so that fraud includes not only auto fraud as defined in the bill, but also fraudulent wrongful denial of legitimate, reasonable and necessary claims by an insurance company.
    CPAN remains committed to joining efforts to combat the “criminal element or characters” that commit alleged fraudulent activities in the auto no-fault system. Raising an assessment totaling $21 million annually should be fully transparent in its purpose, and balanced in its attack on unscrupulous actors on both sides.

    This bill passed the house already

    Also fraudulent wrongful denial of legitimate, reasonable and necessary claims by an insurance company.
    That was not in the bill the house passed that I can find.
    So the ins. co. can reject you legitimate bills even more than they do now.

    Were is the consumers BIG STICK?

    There gona spend more money than they ever find.

    You can find more by google this bill.


  8. #68

    Time to vote them out!!!!

    Time to vote Republican party out in Michigan and save our rights and let the people vote on no-fault and Retirement taxes they passed.
    I have been getting so much crap mail from the Republican party and phone calls.... aka...(The ins. lobby)

    I am voting for all Democratic Party as a lot of people are around me here.

    We are sick of what the Republican party has done in this state.

  9. #69

  10. #70

Posting Permissions

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