2007 House Bill 4301: Revise “serious impairment” definition in no fault law (House Roll Call 35)
Passed 58 to 51 in the House on March 14, 2007, 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 the bill the new definition would be, “an objectively manifested INJURY or impairment INVOLVING an important body function that, HAS AFFECTED, affects, OR MAY AFFECT the injured person's ABILITY to lead his or her normal life.” Under current law the statute reads, “an objectively manifested IMPAIRMENT of an important body function that affects the person's GENERAL ability to lead his or her normal life.” The bill adds new language that 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 and 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’”.
View All of House Bill 4301: History, Amendments & Comments
The vote was 58 in favor, 51 against, and 1 not voting.
(House Roll Call 35 at House Journal 25)
Comment on this vote View others' comments Add to scorecard
|
|
|
|
In Favor
Against
Not Voting
Undecided
Revise “serious impairment” definition in no fault law
IN FAVOR
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
| Gaffney (R) |
AGAINST
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
none
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
HOUSE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE
| Wojno (D) |
HOUSE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
House Roll Call 35 on 2007 House Bill 4301
Comments
1) Enough! by Anonymous Citizen on November 20, 2008Hopefully the days of the Kriener court are behind us! I just read a in interesting article that touches on some of the case you mentioned, sighting them as "The 38 Worst Judicial Travesties of the Michigan Supreme Court". http://www.michiganautolaw.com/auto-lawyers-blog/2008/11/11/the-38-worst-judicial-travesties-of-the-michigan-supreme-court/ . Very eye opening
Jim from Colorado is right...I suppose I would be the greedy giant because I work for an insurance company. The reason costs are high IS BECAUSE OF THE FRADULANT CLAIMS AND THE UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS....MAYBE YOU SHOULD WORK IN INSURANCE BEFORE YOU CLAIM TO KNOW HOW IT WORKS.
Who are you?? Your from Colorado this has no bearing on you!!!!! Before commenting maybe you should do some research. Even though Michigan has the No-Fault system which is the worst, Michigan also has the highest premiums in the country. That defeats the purpose of no-fault wouldn't you say? Furthermore if people have cordinated medical - health insurance covers the bills. Lawsuits against the insurance companies for not paying on claims they should be anyway is not driving up auto insurance costs, it's the insurance companies who are greedy giants.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
