House Passes Insurance Bill, Senate Expected to Follow

[401don]

I'm not familiar enough to know. Is this going to significantly help Detroit residents and those "pretend" suburban residents?

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...nt/1219421001/

[Wheels]

Not going to help Detroit! Just watch the nightly news and all of the horrific high speed crashes and rollovers on city streets. Some are worse then anything even on the highways.

[Johnnny5]

I hope this passes, but even if it does I'm skeptical that we'll actually end up giving up our "1st Place" for high insurance rates. Why not do like just about every other state and just drop the MCCA altogether?

[SammyS]

I hope this passes, but even if it does I'm skeptical that we'll actually end up giving up our "1st Place" for high insurance rates. Why not do like just about every other state and just drop the MCCA altogether?

That's it right there.

[Bigb23]

It seems to be better than the bills that were brought up several times before.
One, back in the nineties, proposed to give the 2-5 billion dollar catastrophic fund paid for by us, to the Michigan Auto Insurers, with the promise that they would lower our rates.
HA, HA and HA. Corporate promises are like a**holes, they all have them and they all stink.

[Honky Tonk]

The article is back pats for Whitmer and cumbayas for both sides the aisle working together, and I agree. It's about time. But it doesn't offer a lot of detail about the legislation itself. One thing I'm getting out of it is you will be able to lower your rate by opting out of, or choosing your medical coverages. That's fine if you have coverage other than auto insurance. What happens if you're permanently injured in, let's say, someone's drag race. Are you to seek compensation by litigation? What if the other party opted out of all coverage, and doesn't have a pot to piss in? Then, I guess you're pretty much hosed. It seems this new auto insurance policy is like a water balloon. You can squeeze @ one end but it just pops out somewhere else. You can lower your rates by choosing PLPD, but it doesn't help you much if you're in an accident. There's a lot of unanswered questions.

[Hypestyles]

.... hopefully this will actually pragmatically lower rates especially in urban districts.

[Lowell]

It appears to still allow geographic red-lining. I haven’t dug into the details and I wondering if there are any constraints on that. Anybody?

[Wesley Mouch]

I hope this passes, but even if it does I'm skeptical that we'll actually end up giving up our "1st Place" for high insurance rates. Why not do like just about every other state and just drop the MCCA altogether?

Unless MCCA is killed, the cost of claims paid by insurance companies won't go down.

And if they don't go down, then the total rates paid by drivers also cannot go down.

Cracking down on suburban addresses used by city residents will only mean increased rates for suburbanites.

Perhaps that will encourage suburbanites to kill MCCA. If rates in the 'burbs go up 25%, the downward pressure may change the politics.

[brizee]

It appears to still allow geographic red-lining. I haven’t dug into the details and I wondering if there are any constraints on that. Anybody?

Yeah that "territories" line is some weasel word bullshit.

This state doesn't take action if Detroit isn't getting screwed over in some way.

[Dumpling]

In a mailing that my Detroit State Representative sent during the
last election cycle, there was a promise that an effort would be made
to lower the insurance by some 20%.

Checking this drop against average rates in other states showed
that Michigan would go from having the most expensive auto insurance
in the United States to having the second most expensive insurance
in the nation.

I actually don't have much of a problem with the catastrophic claims
portion of the insurance bill - it is something like $200 out of the
[[Choose one! $1,200 per year for basic no fault if you shop for
insurance every year. $1,800 per year for basic no fault. $2,000+
per year for basic no fault if you do nothing to shop around. This
is with the excellent credit afforded by a steady job.)
If the catastrophic claims money does what it is supposed to then,
yes, perhaps the fund needs more transparency, but that would be
relatively low on the list of concerns.

We lose about as many Detroiters to auto-related accidents as to
homicides every year. There may be as many as five serious auto accident related injuries for every accident death. It is well worth
taking every care to prevent auto accidents.

My beef with Michigan auto insurance companies is not only do
they use credit ratings to set rates, not only did my monthly
auto insurance go up from about $100 per month to $150 per month
with the renewal year with no OWI, tickets, or other explanatory conditions having occurred, so that I am best off shopping around
for another policy with a different firm [[the firm I'm with now
readjusted the annual rate last year down from $2,000 per year
to $1,200 per year after I talked with a representative), I don't see
enough regular feedback from them with a goal of improving
everyone's understanding for improving driving safety.

Rather than credit records, things like a discount for having
one's tires and brakes checked and maintained periodically
would be preferable.

Some of the current legislative proposals [[Tlaib - no credit checks;
Dingell - more alcohol interlocks) are steps in the right direction.

[shovelhead]

One issue that I did see addressed is the basic tenet of No-Fault. The part that makes the vehicle owner responsible for damages done to their vehicle regardless of who's fault.

You are requiring someone who is driving a vehicle of marginal value to carry some form of collision insurance to protect that marginal value asset even if that person does nothing except being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sure that person aggrieved with no collision coverage can make a Mini-Tort claim for up to $1000 if the at fault driver has insurance but if they have a car that is worth $3000 they have effectively lost $2000 that many can ill afford to lose. Even though I am not in that category I have empathy for people in that position. I carry full coverage on my seven year old vehicle, while being a financial burden on a fixed income the burden would be greater to me if all I could collect was $1000 for it's loss. And I cannot work on these newer cars like I could when they were simpler or I was younger and in better health especially outside in our seven months of winter so that beater is a no-go.

Personally I feel we should go back to an at-fault form of insurance together with uninsured motorist coverage. At least there is some protection for motorists with budget constraints. And as a P.S., an eight year limit on increases, just wait for year nine, like the line in the song "You ain't seen nothing yet".

All smoke and mirrors, a bit of feel good legislation to ease that gas tax increase the Governor wants.

[MSUguy]

This is long overdue while there a lot discussion around being able select lower pip coverage. The bigger underrated change is the new fee schedule for medical providers. The overcharging by providers for auto related injuries has been big driver the high prices.


https://www.bridgemi.com/public-sect...chigan-drivers

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Whitmer expected to sign the bill today, won't see the miniscule deduction for most, until July 2020. Most Detroiters still think they are being screwed.

[Honky Tonk]

I think it's going to shift the cost from insurance premium fees to attorney fees.

[467riverfix]

I'm not familiar enough to know. Is this going to significantly help Detroit residents and those "pretend" suburban residents?

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...nt/1219421001/

As someone close to an individual injured in a catastrophic car accident all I can say is "Michigan, be careful what you wished for." Sure, rates will be cheaper, but what happens if a motorist is now catastrophically injured and requires extensive surgery, long term hospitalization and follow-up care? Yes, there will be a continued option for catastrophic coverage - if insurers will provide it and at what price - but how many motorists will buy it, preferring only immediate decreased rates [[and which are apparently only guaranteed for eight years)?

[Richard]

I think it's going to shift the cost from insurance premium fees to attorney fees.

To lower rates here they have amount limits on PIP and uninsured motorists caps.

$10,000 per incident,full coverage is usually 20,000 if one is making car payments.

If an accident with injury happens,no matter who’s fault they use your $10,000 first which then puts you redline for 5 years at SR22 rates even if you were not at fault.

So it is your $10,000 then the other persons $10,000 so after the lawyer and doctors finish your check is roughly for $1800.

Any medical after that is on you.

I have been driving 43 years no accidents,no tickets and pay $2400 a year for basic insurance on a 1997 model year car that covers $10,000 pip and I added $10,000 for property damage if I hit another car,because I was a passenger in another car and somebody was texting and did not see us stopped and they did not slow down from 45 mph.

When you have an accident here you do not have to call the police and they get mad when you do,you just exchange information and take a cell phone picture of the other person and thier tag and the lawyers and insurance companies decide for you.

You hope in an accident situation that you get hit by a Mack truck verses a smart car.

I have a commercial vehicle that I have $100,000 -$300,000-$50,000 and the rate is $900 a year, commercial insurance does not use points or accidents in rate figures.

Anyway you look at it,the political ones get credit,the insurance company’s get rich and the lawyers get rich and no matter what solutions they come up with,we still get screwed in the end.

Edit,I agree with the above poster,the biggest difference I see is your injury protection,I was quoted $50,000 to fix my back through no fault of my own,but I am responsible for that.

[Honky Tonk]

Edit,I agree with the above poster,the biggest difference I see is your injury protection,I was quoted $50,000 to fix my back through no fault of my own,but I am responsible for that.

From reading the first part of your post, I assume, Richard, your back was injured in a car accident that was someone else's fault? So, for recovery, you have two choices, either hire an attorney and sue the other driver at fault, or pay the $50k out of pocket. Had the other driver unlimited, they would be good. However, if they chose to save 20% on their policy, they could be SOL.

[Richard]

^ sciatic nerve damage.

They do not offer the unlimited here,it was removed when they put in claim limits.

Thats how they lowered the rates here,by limiting the amount claimed to $20,000 per incident,the rest is on you.

You can hire a lawyer and sue but if they have nothing it costs you to get nothing,the first question the lawyers ask is how much is the policy,they are starting to refuse to take cases that involve the basic minimum.

You do save a few $ on premiums but it is only based on hoping nobody hits you or you do not hit anybody else,you just kinda get in the car everyday asking yourself if you feel lucky that day.

[LongGone06]

Personally I feel we should go back to an at-fault form of insurance together with uninsured motorist coverage.

I did not read the Detroit News article, so I don't know if this has been discussed; but, in 1973, part of the sales pitch for No-Fault was the substantial problems caused by the fault-based system. Cases were filed and languished for multiple years in the district and circuit courts, whose dockets were virtually unmanageable. In the meantime, you [[as the faultless driver) couldn't wait around to get your vehicle repaired, which you had to pay for, as well as paying for your necessary medical bills.

The insurance industry offered No-Fault as a fix. You go to your own carrier to get your vehicle repaired and collect economic losses, such as wage and medical, without undue delay. If you are not the at-fault driver, it is up to your insurance carrier to subrogate from the at-fault driver's carrier. In other words, No-Fault relieved you of the burden of collecting your economic losses from the at-fault driver and placed that burden on your insurance carrier. In addition, you can sue the other driver for non-economic losses, such as pain and suffering.

Perhaps 46 years later the system is simply outdated.

[shovelhead]

This is a post I made in 2012:

Before Michigan had mandatory insurance [[No-Fault) we had the choice to have insurance or to pay a fee, originally $35.00 then later $45.00 into what was known as Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, or MVACF.

It functioned for the not at fault party similar to an insurance policy. They made a claim to the state when the at fault party did not have insurance for their damages, The state paid the amount claimed, less $200.00 deductible. The not at fault party then could claim against their insurance company or sue the at fault party for the deductible.

The State of Michigan paid the claim, then went after the at fault party for the repayment. I had a couple of friends that were in that position. If you paid the state back IIRC within two years either in a lump sum or a payment plan you were fine. If you did not either setup a plan or pay the total amount your drivers license and license plates were suspended until restitution was made.

In theory, a driver either had insurance or paid the MVACF fee at registration time. But the usual loophole was to buy insurance and let it lapse. Then more fun started. Right now I cannot find a old registration, but there was a additional fine if you did not pay the fund fee or get insurance in force upon allowing the previous policy to lapse.

The MVACF fund functioned until mid year 1973 when No-Fault Insurance went into effect thereby mandating that all vehicles registered in this state would have insurance at all times.

IMO Michigan could not afford to run this program today.

[O3H]

Insurance is parasitic by its very nature. It feeds on FEAR.

[Carolyn.F]

Insurance is parasitic by its very nature. It feeds on FEAR.

Including required text.

[Honky Tonk]

Insurance is parasitic by its very nature. It feeds on FEAR.

Including required text.

Cute posts. When you're lying there on life support, and the maintenance man has his hand on the plug, and some woman with a TouchPad is standing over you asking "do you have any other kyaks you can sell?", or you're in court, staring @ your shoes, and some guy with donut around his neck, is telling the judge how he's suffered permanent, dibilitating injuries because of your driving habits, take solace in the fact you were clever enough not to be suckered into that insurance scam. In lieu of some of the accident stories posted, I'd reconsider my position.

[Carolyn.F]

Actually, I'm very concerned about this insurance bill since you're forced to choose less coverage for a lower rate. Like much of the decisions made in Lansing, I don't feel like this is going to solve our problems.
I also know bitching about it on a public forum will not fix the problem either.