Tagged: no-fault

Pages

Politics
4:58 pm
Mon January 23, 2012

Lawsuit seeks Michigan auto injury claims data

user H.L.I.T/Flickr /

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story reported that the MCCA fee is $145 per driver. It is, in fact, $145 per insured vehicle. If you own, and insure, two cars, the fee would be $290.

 

A coalition of trial lawyers, unions and victim advocates is going to court seeking data on accidents and insurance payments.

Lawmakers who want to change Michigan’s no-fault insurance system say the current system is unsustainable. But fans of no-fault say the data will show the system is financially sound.

The problem is the information is held by an industry group that does not want to release the information. The group sets an annual assessment on drivers to pay the health care bills of the most-critically injured people.

“This knowledge is being hidden from us, from the Legislature, from the public," said George Sinas, a personal injury attorney who opposes plans to change no-fault. "We are deeply committed in this lawsuit in seeking an end, in seeking a lifting if you will of this shroud of secrecy.”  

Sinas says the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association should be forced to release the information because it was created by the Legislature, and because every driver has to pay the fee.

But the insurance industry disagrees.

"The MCCA is not a public body," said Pete Kuhnmuench, president if the Insurance Institute of Michigan, an industry association. "It’s not even a policymaking body. It’s a payment mechanism. It collects assessments from insurance companies and then it reimburses insurance companies for expenses they have relative to a private contract.”

Kuhnmuench says state insurance regulators make sure the MCCA assessment is fair and that consumers are protected. The MCCA assessment on every insured vehicle in Michigan is $145 this year.

Investigative
1:05 pm
Mon January 16, 2012

Seven things to know about changes to Michigan's mandatory auto insurance

Potential changes to Michigan's auto no-fault insurance law would be "referendum proof." Voters would not be allowed to overturn it.
user bettyx1138 / Flickr

The Michigan House of Representatives is expected to bring HB 4936 to the floor for a vote soon.

That legislation would significantly change Michigan’s auto no-fault Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage.

Here is a quick overview of what we have now, the proposed changes, and the potential consequences of those changes.

1. What we have now

There’s some confusion about changing no-fault. It’s not the “no-fault” part that would change. It’s the Personal Injury Protection portion of auto insurance that would change.

The state mandates a minimum of $500,000 in Personal Injury Protection and an annual fee to the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) for each vehicle policy.

Read more
no-fault insurance
10:14 pm
Thu December 1, 2011

“Without no-fault insurance…I’d lose everything I own”

A coalition of rehabilitation centers and people injured in car accidents is trying to stop proposed changes to Michigan’s no-fault auto insurance benefits.

The Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault is hosting town hall meetings across the state to educate people about the proposed changes. They’re also inviting people impacted by a major car accident to share their stories.

Read more
Investigative
7:00 am
Tue November 29, 2011

Protecting yourself after changes to no-fault insurance

Michigan legislators are considering changing insurance benefits for people badly injured in auto accidents.  The sponsors of the legislation say it will lower the price of auto insurance.  Some analysts say it will mean people who are severely hurt won’t get the care they need and argue in the end won’t save much money at all.

Read more
Investigative
7:00 am
Mon November 28, 2011

Legislators want data before changing auto no-fault

user H.L.I.T. / Flickr

Michigan legislators are looking at changing the state’s mandatory auto no-fault insurance.  But some of the legislators say the information they need from insurance companies to make an informed decision has not been available to them.  Regulators say legislators and the public wouldn’t be able to understand the information even if it were made available.

Read more

Pages

%s1 / %s2