- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Mark Meadows (D) on March 24, 2009, to revise the definition of "serious impairment of body function" in the no fault auto insurance law. A person who causes such an injury may be subject to a lawsuit for “pain and suffering” damages otherwise barred by the no fault law. Under current law the statute permits lawsuits where, “an objectively manifested IMPAIRMENT of an important body function that affects the person's GENERAL ability to lead his or her normal life.” The new language would establish that a person need not show that an injury or impairment “altered the course or trajectory of the person's life, caused the person to be generally unable or for the most part unable to live his or her normal life, or caused the person's life after the injury to be substantially different from the person's life before the injury; (or) that the injury or impairment, or its effect, was permanent, severe, substantial, extensive, or pervasive or lasted for a significant period of time; (or) that there were physician-imposed restrictions.” This relates to recent controversial Supreme Court decisions in Straub v. Collette and in Kreiner v. Fischer, where the court held, "to determine whether one has suffered a ‘serious impairment of body function,’ the totality of the circumstances must be considered, and the ultimate question that must be answered is whether the impairment 'affects the person’s general ability to conduct the course of his or her normal life’”.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on March 24, 2009.
- Reported in the House on March 25, 2009, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on March 24, 2009.
- Passed 68 to 42 in the House on April 2, 2009, to revise the definition of "serious impairment of body function" in the no fault auto insurance law. A person who causes such an injury may be subject to a lawsuit for “pain and suffering” damages otherwise barred by the no fault law. This relates to controversial Supreme Court decision in Kreiner v. Fischer. See introduced version for a fuller description.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on April 21, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on April 21, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4680 (Revise “serious impairment” definition in no fault law ) by redwhiteblue on March 17, 2010
I'm glad you don't support this bill as it stands. I can't believe the mess this will make in Michigan if it is allowed to be "retroactive" as I am sure many Michiganders who were exemplary drivers took out car insurance liability amounts that were in line with the Kreiner Laws threshhold. If this bill is passed and made to be retroactive, I am sure people will be caught grossly underinsured by suit seekers since they insured themselves with an amount they felt comfortable with having the Kreiner law intact. This bill should not be retroactive so that people will have the chance to reassess their own liability limits with their insurance companies and given a chance to "up their insurance policies" so they will have enough coverage to now cover the nuisance suits that will occur.
Thank you for your time and concern.
Reply
Rep. Haines, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I oppose this change because it will dramatically increase the cost of
car insurance at a time when our economy is already weak and families
are struggling to get by. It also includes a provision making the
change retroactive, which will set a chilling and dangerous precedent
that will discourage job providers from investing in our state.
For these reasons I cannot support this bill at this time.”
Reply
Rep. McMillin, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
Serious changes need to be made to correct the effects of Kreiner. This
bill, though, went too far. I hope to see this bill back from the
Senate in a form I can support - that corrects many wrongs from
Kreiner.”
Reply
View Full Conversation
