When “No-Fault” insurance laws were enacted in the early 1970’s in about a dozen or 14 states, only three (NJ, Michigan and PA) included unlimited PIP Medical Expense coverage. PA and NJ modified their laws to reduce PIP Medical Expenses benefits to a lesser limit – which did absolutely nothing to reduce premiums for the No-Fault coverages or total policy premiums. Don’t expect any different result in Michigan. It will not occur, regardless of what the Department of Insurance or insurance company/bureau representatives say now.
Disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion as NJ PIP is capped at $250K. Also don’t forget that it is the people who own policies in Michigan who pay the extremely hefty PIP surcharge already PER VEHICLE!
Dear “Jane” – I don’t understand your criticism – I specifically mentioned that PA and NJ had reduced their PIP medical benefits – which had been unlimited – just as MI is contemplating. And the companies just continued to increase premiums and profits. No-Fault is without question a great benefit for the auto owning/insuring public. The system behind the claims is what’s wrong. Too many lawyers, some scoundrels and cheats (you’ll have them in every benefits system). Blame these scoundrels, attorneys who milk the system, insurance companies who act like it’s their money – cure the abuses, don’t throw out the benefit.
Jane – and others – NJ originally had unlimited PIP Medical – I know because I was involved in the two No-Fault draft laws introduced in our legislature, and was National Casualty Committee Chairman for the “Big I”, monitoring the introduction of No-Fault laws in some 39 states. After many years, companies belly-ached so loudly to politicians, that they got the Governor and Legislature to reduce the maximum medical to $250,000. in NJ. No rate reductions, just continuing increases. A prime culprit in No-fault costs are the carriers thirst for profits. They’re just as bad as the boogy-man “plaintiff’s” attorneys.
That hefty charge is $145 per vehicle per year. I’ll happily pay it considering the fact that if I was paralysed by a car accident and medical bills and rehab would be covered. Jane have you looked at hospital bills lately? $250,000 would not go very far.
The first comment clearly comes from a P.I. Attorney…”Expert”.
Come on, how many “auto accidents” settle for MORE than $5 million dollars? I have been licensed and sold auto insurance for over 30 years and assure you not ONE of my clients ever had damages exceeding the lower limit of $250,000. Of course, it sounds like they had the wrong attorney…
If “unlimited” was off the table, and the Michigan DOI would allow companies to file rates based upon their actuarial studies, rates would be reduced with limited damages. The MATH would force it and competition cause it.
Of course, in such a liberal environment, anything which takes from the ambulance chasers will be fought hard to keep the lottery tickets available.
Wake up, this is the problem with our tort system in many cases.
I should have to write on the cup of coffee that I sell, “May be hot and cause burns to idiots which spill this hot drink on their genitals??”
Think this type of stupid litigation increases the cost of producing and delivering products?
A kitchen blender must include a warning NOT to stick you hand in while operating???????
Seriously?
Both AZ Insurance Man and Amazed are dead wrong. I am and always have been an advocate of better and more responsive insurance products for the consumer, and while a law school graduate, I have never practiced law, and would have been a defense-oriented attorney had I gone into that profession. AZ has never had No-Fault, so I’d suggest AZ “insurance man” knows nothing about the product and the huge benefits it affords drivers – most of whom are injured through no fault of their own. Don’t know where Amazed hails from, or his/her propfession, but would suggest Amazed is as ignorant of the benefits No-Fault provides as is AZ. If you truly understand No-Fault, you know is is a consumer-oriented coverage, and will reduce lawsuits that’s why many attorneys don’t like it, guys. Only insurance company employees and management have disliked No-Fault (one might even say “hated”). They always have and always wil be adverse to paying people policy benefits for injuiries in accidents regardless of who caused the accident. Get real guys, and know about the subject you’re commenting on. You’re dueling here with one of the strongest and most effective advocates on No-Fault when it was developed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Care to state your education and experience and employment? Might help us to know where your views are coming from.
Okay, now the Michigan Plaintiff’s Bar has wrecked no-fault turning it into a cottage industry of family sponsored Attendant Care for nonsense claims while generating some good attorney fees out of it in the process. So while wife is home, hubby is billing the insurance carrier for 24 hour a day care to “take care of her.” I use the word taking care of metaphorically. Moral hazard of the Nth degree.
So sorry Plaintiff’s bar for abusing the system to such a degree that the golden goose of fees (for litigation of such nonsense) is looking likely to be cooked.
At the end of the day and the truth is that the policyholders of Michigan are paying a very heavy premium for the abuse of the system in the form of a hefty PIP surcharge per vehicle. While there are very deserving claimants who deserve treatment/benefits/attendant care, there are just as many abusers claiming they need attendant care and that their husband, kid, cousin, etc. should get paid for watching them alleging that only a family member can provide attendant care (even when offered a CNA, oh no, we don’t need a CNA, we need a family member so we can get paid!).
Excuse my sarcasm, but the PIP system needs serious evaluation because the policyholders of Michigan should not have to pay for its abuse.
This seems like a no-brainer to me. Anyone that hops in a 1-2 ton steel mass and hurtles it down the road at 60-80 miles per hour between other 1-20 ton masses going similar speeds and in opposite directions should consider they may need insurance if their mass collides with some other mass as they are doing it. And medicare/medicaid? That’s their complaint? Then cut the #$(@$’s stupid enough not to get sufficient coverage off if they get in an accident! Problem solved!!!
When “No-Fault” insurance laws were enacted in the early 1970’s in about a dozen or 14 states, only three (NJ, Michigan and PA) included unlimited PIP Medical Expense coverage. PA and NJ modified their laws to reduce PIP Medical Expenses benefits to a lesser limit – which did absolutely nothing to reduce premiums for the No-Fault coverages or total policy premiums. Don’t expect any different result in Michigan. It will not occur, regardless of what the Department of Insurance or insurance company/bureau representatives say now.
Disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion as NJ PIP is capped at $250K. Also don’t forget that it is the people who own policies in Michigan who pay the extremely hefty PIP surcharge already PER VEHICLE!
Dear “Jane” – I don’t understand your criticism – I specifically mentioned that PA and NJ had reduced their PIP medical benefits – which had been unlimited – just as MI is contemplating. And the companies just continued to increase premiums and profits. No-Fault is without question a great benefit for the auto owning/insuring public. The system behind the claims is what’s wrong. Too many lawyers, some scoundrels and cheats (you’ll have them in every benefits system). Blame these scoundrels, attorneys who milk the system, insurance companies who act like it’s their money – cure the abuses, don’t throw out the benefit.
Jane – and others – NJ originally had unlimited PIP Medical – I know because I was involved in the two No-Fault draft laws introduced in our legislature, and was National Casualty Committee Chairman for the “Big I”, monitoring the introduction of No-Fault laws in some 39 states. After many years, companies belly-ached so loudly to politicians, that they got the Governor and Legislature to reduce the maximum medical to $250,000. in NJ. No rate reductions, just continuing increases. A prime culprit in No-fault costs are the carriers thirst for profits. They’re just as bad as the boogy-man “plaintiff’s” attorneys.
That hefty charge is $145 per vehicle per year. I’ll happily pay it considering the fact that if I was paralysed by a car accident and medical bills and rehab would be covered. Jane have you looked at hospital bills lately? $250,000 would not go very far.
The first comment clearly comes from a P.I. Attorney…”Expert”.
Come on, how many “auto accidents” settle for MORE than $5 million dollars? I have been licensed and sold auto insurance for over 30 years and assure you not ONE of my clients ever had damages exceeding the lower limit of $250,000. Of course, it sounds like they had the wrong attorney…
If “unlimited” was off the table, and the Michigan DOI would allow companies to file rates based upon their actuarial studies, rates would be reduced with limited damages. The MATH would force it and competition cause it.
Of course, in such a liberal environment, anything which takes from the ambulance chasers will be fought hard to keep the lottery tickets available.
Wake up, this is the problem with our tort system in many cases.
I should have to write on the cup of coffee that I sell, “May be hot and cause burns to idiots which spill this hot drink on their genitals??”
Think this type of stupid litigation increases the cost of producing and delivering products?
A kitchen blender must include a warning NOT to stick you hand in while operating???????
Seriously?
Really????
I couldn’t agree with you more – “Do not iorn clothes while wearing them” has always been a personal favorite of mine.
Both AZ Insurance Man and Amazed are dead wrong. I am and always have been an advocate of better and more responsive insurance products for the consumer, and while a law school graduate, I have never practiced law, and would have been a defense-oriented attorney had I gone into that profession. AZ has never had No-Fault, so I’d suggest AZ “insurance man” knows nothing about the product and the huge benefits it affords drivers – most of whom are injured through no fault of their own. Don’t know where Amazed hails from, or his/her propfession, but would suggest Amazed is as ignorant of the benefits No-Fault provides as is AZ. If you truly understand No-Fault, you know is is a consumer-oriented coverage, and will reduce lawsuits that’s why many attorneys don’t like it, guys. Only insurance company employees and management have disliked No-Fault (one might even say “hated”). They always have and always wil be adverse to paying people policy benefits for injuiries in accidents regardless of who caused the accident. Get real guys, and know about the subject you’re commenting on. You’re dueling here with one of the strongest and most effective advocates on No-Fault when it was developed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Care to state your education and experience and employment? Might help us to know where your views are coming from.
Please be advised that the unlimited No-Fault benefits are FIRST party benefits to the policy holder and have nothing to do with tort liability.
Okay, now the Michigan Plaintiff’s Bar has wrecked no-fault turning it into a cottage industry of family sponsored Attendant Care for nonsense claims while generating some good attorney fees out of it in the process. So while wife is home, hubby is billing the insurance carrier for 24 hour a day care to “take care of her.” I use the word taking care of metaphorically. Moral hazard of the Nth degree.
So sorry Plaintiff’s bar for abusing the system to such a degree that the golden goose of fees (for litigation of such nonsense) is looking likely to be cooked.
At the end of the day and the truth is that the policyholders of Michigan are paying a very heavy premium for the abuse of the system in the form of a hefty PIP surcharge per vehicle. While there are very deserving claimants who deserve treatment/benefits/attendant care, there are just as many abusers claiming they need attendant care and that their husband, kid, cousin, etc. should get paid for watching them alleging that only a family member can provide attendant care (even when offered a CNA, oh no, we don’t need a CNA, we need a family member so we can get paid!).
Excuse my sarcasm, but the PIP system needs serious evaluation because the policyholders of Michigan should not have to pay for its abuse.
This seems like a no-brainer to me. Anyone that hops in a 1-2 ton steel mass and hurtles it down the road at 60-80 miles per hour between other 1-20 ton masses going similar speeds and in opposite directions should consider they may need insurance if their mass collides with some other mass as they are doing it. And medicare/medicaid? That’s their complaint? Then cut the #$(@$’s stupid enough not to get sufficient coverage off if they get in an accident! Problem solved!!!