This type of decision is what we can expect from the change in 2008 from a 5/4 Republican majority to a 5/4 Democratic majority. Nothing good will come from this court.
In Michigan folks are used to BI and UMBI coverage costing very little while PIP has and will continue to be quite expensive. With this ruling you can get ready for BI and UMBI rates to skyrocket.
What Florida is to bad Property Insurance policy, Michigan is to bad Auto Insurance policy. I wish the legislature would have the insight to address NoFault in an intelligent way – but they would rather have auto insurers pay unemployment benefits (in the form of unlimited PIP) vs. out of their state budget.
The concern with courts expanding coverage like this is the emergence of “new old claims.” For example, someone whose lawyer told them they couldn’t sue, but now they can because Kreiner was overturned. Insurers cannot go back and collect more premium for the years 2004 to 2009 to cover these new claims. Even if the rates go up, BI and UM coverages are going to have a bad couple of years if you look at them on a calendar-year basis.
Colorado has waffled; they went back to a tort system, then realized people still were not adequately covered and imposed mandatory medical payments coverage on autos. I agree that this fundamentally undermines the concept of No Fault. So, I agree…let’s do away with no fault, go back to tort, and flood the courts with lengthy lawsuits.
To your point on new-old claims: I would really hope they would put some sort of statute of limitations on this; this would really mess with insurers’ former income statements, loss reserves, etc. What a nightmare! Another example of government having no clue how insurance operates and how their decisions impact our industry.
This type of decision is what we can expect from the change in 2008 from a 5/4 Republican majority to a 5/4 Democratic majority. Nothing good will come from this court.
In Michigan folks are used to BI and UMBI coverage costing very little while PIP has and will continue to be quite expensive. With this ruling you can get ready for BI and UMBI rates to skyrocket.
Can you say, “TORT REFORM?!”
Get out there and vote today!
What Florida is to bad Property Insurance policy, Michigan is to bad Auto Insurance policy. I wish the legislature would have the insight to address NoFault in an intelligent way – but they would rather have auto insurers pay unemployment benefits (in the form of unlimited PIP) vs. out of their state budget.
What really needs to be done to control costs would be to place a limit on the PIP…
I am confident that the actuaries for the auto insurers will be able to calculate adequate rates to assure profitibility.
Affordability is an entiely different matter.
Considering the current economic conditions in Michigan, perhaps the state should follow Colorado’s lead and simply do away with the PIP concept
Going forward, yes, rates can be made adequate.
The concern with courts expanding coverage like this is the emergence of “new old claims.” For example, someone whose lawyer told them they couldn’t sue, but now they can because Kreiner was overturned. Insurers cannot go back and collect more premium for the years 2004 to 2009 to cover these new claims. Even if the rates go up, BI and UM coverages are going to have a bad couple of years if you look at them on a calendar-year basis.
Colorado has waffled; they went back to a tort system, then realized people still were not adequately covered and imposed mandatory medical payments coverage on autos. I agree that this fundamentally undermines the concept of No Fault. So, I agree…let’s do away with no fault, go back to tort, and flood the courts with lengthy lawsuits.
To your point on new-old claims: I would really hope they would put some sort of statute of limitations on this; this would really mess with insurers’ former income statements, loss reserves, etc. What a nightmare! Another example of government having no clue how insurance operates and how their decisions impact our industry.