Michigan Auto Insurance Coverage

There are two sides to every argument, so when it comes to looking at Michigan's Automobile Medical Insurance, there are those who think it should be reformed and those who think it should stay how it is.  Currently, Michiganders are required to pay for unlimited lifetime benefits. 

Those who think the insurance program is fluky have a strong argument. According to an opinion article in Sunday's AnnArbor.com paper written by Pete Kuhnmuench, Michigan has the highest mandated auto insurance medical benefit in the country.  The op-ed also makes the argument that Michigan is the only state which "mandates unlimited, lifetime medical benefits."

Recently House Bill 4936 was introduced which would "allow consumers to choose the level of medical benefits that best fits their own needs."  However, this is where the two viewpoints on Michigan's mandated auto insurance medical benefits differ.

The side opposing this bill, identifies that this bill only hurts Michigan's drivers.  In another recent op-ed in AnnArbor.com's Sunday paper by John Cornack, he said that the House Bill "caps personal injury protection benefits as low as $500,000, puts price controls on health care providers, and limits in-home care for the most severely injured drivers."  In Mr Cornack's view, the bill would merely shift costs from insurance companies onto others such as hospitals and individuals.

In all, removing the auto insurance medical benefit mandate in the state of Michigan would give consumers the choice of what kind of coverage they want but it would also be at a cost to those individuals.  Removing the mandate would not make this insurance cheaper and in the long run, if someone was injured and had to pay over $500,000 worth of medical bills, it would be coming out of their own pocket.

Bicyclist Must Obey Law or Face Serious Consequences

City Prosecutors in San Francisco recently filed felony vehicular manslaughter charges against a bicyclist who hit and killed a 67 year old pedestrian in a crosswalk.  The bicyclist allegedly ran a red light at a high rate of speed and struck the elderly woman.  See  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404577466990820318610.html  Bicyclist not only have to be concerned about their own criminal liability but also must be aware that in Michigan their own negligence can significantly reduce or eliminate their ability to collect benefits under the Michigan No Fault Law.  See http://www.michiganautoaccident.com/Practice-Area/Types-of-Accidents.shtml    Michigan uses a pure comparative negligence standard that reduces damage awards by the percent fault attributed to the negligent bicylclist.  This means that if a bicyclist is riding on the wrong side of the road and gets hit by a motor vehicle the jury is allowed to reduce the injured bicylclist's damage award by the percent of fault that is attributed to the bicyclist for causing the accident.  If the jury finds that the injured bicyclist is more than 50% at fault then the bicyclist will get no pain and suffering damages and only a reduced amount of economic damages for such things as lost wages.