Fixing the Engler mess re: no-fault auto insurance.

[maddogesq]

As some of you may know, I was one of the victims of a head-on collision on 1-69 in March, 2002 that was caused by a drunk, 19 year old WMU student. It was a case that was well publicized in Kalamazoo and surrounding communities, but didn’t get much play in the Detroit area.

Today, House Bill 4301 went before the House Judiciary Committee:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/htm/2007-HIB-4301.htm

I was alerted to this because there was an associated article in today’s Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070221/NEWS06/702210393/1001

This is an issue that hits home with me, because I never felt I was fairly compensated for what I went through after that incident. This situation is just another shining example of 12 years of John Engler and Republican giveaways to the insurance industry in this state.

I am deeply grateful that my representative (Aldo Vagnozzi) is a co-sponsor of this bill. Let us hope the Republicans cannot poison-pill this thing into oblivion. Even if I am never given true personal justice, I hope no one else in a similar position ever has to go through the same thing I did.

[noonwitch]

1. You can't blame no-fault on Engler

The voters voted for it on the ballot sometime in the 70s. I was a kid and distinctly remember my dad saying no fault was a bad idea and was only going to result in the insurance companies sticking it to us.

Dad was right.

[maddogesq]

2. No-fault isn't the prblem, it's the amendent,: and the 2004 decision.

From the article:

"Then in 2004 came the Kreiner decision, in which the state Supreme Court interpreted a 1995 amendment to the no-fault law by holding that a claimant must prove that his or her life is significantly altered -- be unable to generally live as before the accident -- to succeed."

In the 1990's, they basically rose the bar to which one had to reach in order to be compensated forpain, suffering, etc. Compound that with all the conservative judges appointed by Gov. Big Turd, and you had a situation where you have to be disfigured or die before having any chance of getting real compensation.

If you would like to know about my case, please message me and I will be glad to give details. In short, it was a well pubicized case where a drunk driver that had left a WMU frat party travel south bound in the north bound lane of I-69 and smacked head-on into my van, killing my keyboard player and laying me up for awhile.

Sorry, but methinks I have a right to be excited about long overdue legislation such as this.

[noonwitch]

4. I didn't say you didn't have the right to

I just thought you were blaming no-fault in general on Engler, that's all. No-fault itself has been around for a long time.

Engler did stack to judiciary with those who were friendly to the insurance agency, and they did do away with a lot of consumer protection rules of the past. They also got through the bill that keeps consumers from suing pharmacuetical companies for making mistakes.

[maddogesq]

6. Sorry, I did get a bit testy on that one.

It is just so frustrating in the 5 years since that fateful night when this subject gets brought up.

I don't see no-fault going away anytime soon, but I do see a chance to at least make it better for vicims of drunk drivers, etc. to get justice.

[shugah]

3. i'm not crazy about no fault insurance

and i don't agree with the way the kreiner case was decided (at least as far as i understand it from the article).

2 things from the article bother me.

1) If the Kreiner decision is somehow overturned, he warned, Michigan motorists could be hit with double-digit premium increases.

the insurance companies take every opportunity possible to increase premiums, justified or no. does HB 4301 address that?

2) Kreiner, who was hurt in a 1997 crash caused by another driver, has become the poster boy in a legislative showdown between the state's insurance industry and a coalition of trial lawyers, medical associations and two dozen other groups.

does HB 4301 address the needs of us just plain old insurance paying people? the circumstances of the kreiner accident are not included in the article. if it was an "accident" (isn't that what we pay insurance for?) then should the driver lose everything in a court case? accidents do happen. in your own case - a 19 year old college student would not likely have much in the way of resources to compensate you for your losses. does that then fall to the insurance company? does HB 4301 make the insurance company the payer to the payee?

i am not getting the entire gist of HB 4301. reading through it does not make the changes crystal clear. perhaps you could summarize the key points of this bill that have garnered your support?

[maddogesq]

5. After looking it over, and talking to a few folks it is my belief...

that the bill addresses the issue of what must be proven in order for a vicitm to collect sums above what is awarded under no-fault. In 1995, 1956 was amended, which basically raised the bar so that if you survive an accident such as mine, it is much more difficult for you to fight the other driver's insurance company to achieve a fair sum of money for pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of income, etc. As I see it, the bill doesn't get rid of no-fault itself; another issue althogether.

To use myself as an example, I took home $4700 after attorney's fees above what I got for my van, initial medical expenses, etc. If that same accident happened in say, a state like Colorado where my sisters live, I would have got at minimum $50,000 based on the circumstances of my particular case. The perp's insurance carrier basically dared me to take them to court, because the changes in the 1990's gave them more of an upper hand than they already had to start with under no-fault law.

I am not a lawyer, so this explanation has no gaurentees of complete accuracy. If there are any legal eagles on this board who can further clarify what I said, it would be most appreciated.

[shugah]

7. thanks for the clarification

i'll try reading through it again.

[maddogesq]

8. Check this out: Legislative Analysis

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/House/pdf/2007-HLA-4301-1.pdf

I can’t find the link just now, but the minutes of Juditciary on 2/21 had an interesting line-up of folks opposed to the bill that included plenty-O-shills from the insurance industry.

Gosh, I guess I won't be invited to those really kewl drunk-a-thon confabs the insurance industry has to celebrate how much they screw the little guy in this state.