The Michigan No-Fault Act, which controls auto insurance,
has been up for review and possible reform for years. Past bills have unsuccessfully
tried to impose caps and restrictions on injured motorists seeking coverage. Now
a new proposal takes no-fault reform in a new direction: consumer protection.
Covering Catastrophically Injured Motorists
The Michigan No-Fault Act is designed to make sure no one
faces a financial emergency because of a severe auto accident. It provides
unlimited medical benefits and up to three years of lost wages and replacement
services. Every Michigan driver is required to buy no-fault insurance to cover
his or her vehicle, in case of an accident. After the most severe car crashes,
lifetime medical expenses can easily rack up to millions of dollars. To keep
any one insurance company from being put out of business by the bad luck of its
consumers, the law includes a fail safe: the Michigan Catastrophic Claims
Association (MCCA).
The MCCA is a private
organization of Michigan auto insurers. It reimburses insurance companies
for medical claims of injured motorists above $555,000. The organization is
funded by assessments that are passed on to policy holders. In 2017, it costs
$170 per vehicle insured. The MCCA currently controls about $20 billion in
funds, and claims it is not enough to pay the expected benefits.
The Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association in the Courts
How that assessment is calculated has been under the
microscope in recent years. The Coalition
Protecting Auto No-Fault, a watchdog organization, tried to get to the
bottom of recent assessment increases using a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request. But MCCA said no.
The dispute resulted in a lawsuit, Coalition
Protecting Auto No-Fault v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association. The
Michigan Court of Appeals said that even though the MCCA was a public body
(created by statute), it was exempt from the state’s FOIA laws under the
Michigan No-Fault Act. The Michigan Supreme Court refused to review the case.
New Bill Promotes Transparency and Consumer Protection within MCCA
Responding to the Court’s decision, Michigan Representative
Henry Yanez (D – Sterling Heights) has proposed a new
no-fault reform bill, HB 4354, that would improve transparency and allow the
public to understand how MCCA assessments are calculated. If passed, the bill
would:
- Remove the FOIA exemption for the MCCA
- Require the MCCA to publicly post details about how the assessment is calculated
- Require annual audits by an independent CPA
- Appoint a public member to the MCCA board of directors to act as a consumer protection advocate
Another bill, HB
4049, would require similar levels of transparency, but doesn’t have the
same consumer protections. Yanez told one
Michigan news source:
“This is one piece of the puzzle and is something that we really need to be forthright and aggressive on because as a consumer who is required to buy a product, we should know what we’re buying.”
The bills represent a push by consumer advocates to address
the many factors driving up costs, rather than simply capping premiums. Recommendations
also include creating an insurance fraud authority with the power to
investigate claimants, medical providers, and insurance providers themselves to
fight back against fraudulent claims or denials.
Either bill will likely face challenges in the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Neither has yet been voted out
of committee, and it remains to be seen whether any substantial no-fault reform
bill will have the votes it needs to become law. But by including these bills
in the mix, state representatives are looking out for the consumers protection
needs of their constituents.
Dani K. Liblang is a consumer
protection and personal injury attorney at The Liblang Law Firm, PC, in
Birmingham, Michigan. If you have been seriously injured in an auto accident, contact
The Liblang Law Firm, PC, for a consultation.
No comments:
Post a Comment