CPAN Praises “Fair and Affordable” Auto Insurance Reform Legislation

Proposed bills would implement cost-containment measures, create fair auto insurance rating practices and bring more transparency to Michigan’s auto insurance system

LANSING, MI – A bipartisan group of Michigan lawmakers announced today a comprehensive set of legislation aimed at improving Michigan’s no-fault auto insurance system. The legislation, which lawmakers have dubbed the “Fair and Affordable No-Fault Reform Package,” is currently in the process of being drafted and is expected to be introduced in the coming weeks.

“While we have not yet seen the final bills, this is the closest we have seen to a complete no-fault reform package in a long, long time,” said Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault President John Cornack. “The proposals unveiled today would bring dramatic and lasting improvements to Michigan’s insurance system that all sides would benefit from. Whether you are a driver, an accident survivor, a healthcare provider or even an insurance company, there is something to like in this package.”

Earlier this year, CPAN unveiled a 24-point plan to reform Michigan’s auto insurance system. The proposals announced today incorporate many but not all of CPAN’s recommendations, including:

  • Adopt reasonable fee schedules and attendant care limits to rein in medical costs related to auto injuries;
  • Stop non-driving related factors from unfairly impacting auto insurance rates;
  • Bring transparency to the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association by making its ratemaking data available to the public;
  • Aggressively tackle fraud and claims handling abuse by creating a state fraud authority.

Cornack was particularly enthusiastic about proposals that will tackle unfair insurance ratings practices, such as using credit scores and job titles to set auto insurance rates.

“Everyone in this state should be pleased that lawmakers are bringing fairness to auto insurance rating practices,” said Cornack. “Our research has shown that insurance companies will use every excuse imaginable to increase rates for drivers. One company even charges as much as 33 percent more to women than men for the same car, address and driving record. That is completely wrong and must be stopped.”

Legislators announcing the Fair and Affordable No-Fault Reform package included Rep. Rep. Ben Frederick (R-Owosso), Rep. Donna Lasinski (D-Scio Township), Rep. Joseph Graves (R-Argentine Township), Rep. Sherry Gay-Dagnogo (D-Detroit), Rep. Michael Webber (R-Rochester); Rep. Tim Greimel (D-Auburn Hills); Rep. Pete Lucido (R-Shelby Township); and Rep. Ed Canfield (R-Sebewaing).

“We are particularly encouraged to see Democrats and Republicans working together come up with a solution that protects accident survivors while still lowering rates across the state,” said Cornack. This sort of bipartisan approach is something that has all too often lacking when it comes to this issue.”

In addition to containing medical costs and addressing unfair rating practices, lawmakers also announced legislation to fix problems caused by two recent Michigan Supreme Court cases that have drastically harmed Michigan’s no-fault auto insurance system.

Admire vs. Auto Owners has been used by insurance companies to deny paying no-fault benefits for legitimate expenses needed by auto accident victims, including handicapped accessible transportation and even specialized food needed by patients. Lawmakers plan to introduce legislation to ensure that accident survivors will have these basic needs met.

Legislation will also be introduced to fix the disastrous court ruling Covenant Medical Center vs. State Farm, which prevents medical providers from suing insurance companies on behalf of auto accident patients when insurers refuse to pay for treatment that has been rendered. The decision puts patients squarely in the crosshairs of litigation, because health care providers will no longer be able to battle insurance companies on behalf of their patients.

“Both of these decisions were a miscarriage of justice that, if allowed to go uncorrected, posed a serious threat to Michigan’s no-fault system,” said Cornack. “We greatly appreciate the work these lawmakers have done and continue to do to bring lower rates to drivers while protecting the elements that make Michigan’s no-fault system so great.”

###


Higher Premiums for Widows, Other Single Women in Michigan Auto Insurance Market

Study Finds Some Insurers Raise Rates on Female and Unmarried Customers Despite Michigan Law Prohibiting Use of Gender or Marital Status for Pricing Car Insurance 

Lansing – Widowed drivers in Michigan are charged more by some auto insurers than married drivers of the same age, even if they have perfect driving records, according to new data released today by Michigan’s Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN). Testing also found companies charging women significantly more for basic auto insurance than men, including young men often considered the highest risk drivers. These surcharges appear to violate Michigan law, which states: “an insurer shall not establish or maintain rates or rating classifications for automobile insurance based on sex or marital status.”

A survey of online premium quotes from several large auto insurers operating in Michigan, found that Progressive and Esurance alter rates for drivers based on their gender and marital status, and Liberty Mutual charges more to unmarried drivers.

  • These three companies raise widows’ and other single women’s premiums between five and ten percent compared with married women;
  • Progressive charges women with perfect driving records as much as 38 percent more than men with the same record, same vehicle, and same address;
  • Esurance charges women with perfect driving records as much as 33 percent more than men with the same record, same vehicle, and same address; and
  • Other insurers tested, including Allstate and AAA, appear to comply with state law and do not vary rates based on gender or marital

“It is both unseemly and improper to increase prices for someone when her spouse dies,” said Douglas Heller, an independent insurance expert who conducted the research for the Coalition Protecting No- Fault (CPAN). “Michigan law is supposed to prevent insurance companies from charging more to women or unmarried drivers, but some insurers seem to be ignoring the law and charging hundreds of dollars more to drivers simply because they are female, single, divorced, or widowed.”

Using insurance companies’ websites, Heller compared nearly 100 premium quotes provided to male and female drivers of different marital statuses and ages. The research also looked at whether the patterns changed based on geography, testing rates in both Detroit and Brighton, Michigan.

Throughout the testing, other factors such as address, type of car, and annual miles were held constant. In all instances, the drivers tested had perfect records with no accidents, tickets, or claims.

“This study reveals yet another unfair factor that insurance companies use to make extra profits at the expense of Michiganders,” said State Representative Donna Lasinski (D – Scio Twp). “Discriminating in rates based on sex or marital status is illegal, but also fundamentally wrong. We need to make sure that good drivers have good rates, period.”

Progressive and Esurance charged between 10 percent and 38 percent more to women than men in Detroit, in one instance nearly $1,000 per year, despite all drivers tested having a clean driving record (see Figure 1). The same pricing structure was evident in Brighton, though the penalty for “driving while female” was somewhat less with the increases on female drivers ranging from 3 percent to 26 percent.

“There is no reason to punish good drivers based on their sex, and Michigan law is right to prohibit it,” said Heller. “But when gender is used as a factor, no one in or out of the insurance business thinks that young male drivers are the ones who should get the discounts, so it is very strange to see companies charging hundreds of dollars more to young women than young men.”

Three companies also charged different rates to married and unmarried drivers. Liberty Mutual, Progressive, and Esurance charged widows (female drivers whose spouse is deceased), higher premiums than if their spouse were still alive. Figure 2 shows the widow penalty in both Detroit and Brighton.

Notably, the testing found that married male drivers actually saw premiums from Progressive and Esurance drop after they became widowers, though Liberty Mutual consistently applied a 5 percent surcharge on all drivers who lose a spouse, regardless of their sex.

“Women already struggle for equal pay, and here we have insurance companies piling on by charging women drivers more for auto insurance. It is a blatant violation of the law and must be stopped,” said State Representative Sherry Gay-Dagnogo, who chairs the Detroit Caucus and also serves on the House Insurance Committee.

As with the widow penalty, insurers charged more to divorced and single women than married woman, as shown in Figure 3. Once again, however, Progressive and Esurance lowered rates for 35 year old men after a divorce, even as they hiked premiums for female divorcees. Liberty Mutual charged more to divorced drivers whether male or female.

“Under state law, every driver must purchase auto insurance, whether they are male or female,

married or not, and good drivers should get the best prices, regardless of their sex or marital status,” said Heller. “When insurance companies are allowed to slice, dice, and price Michiganders according to personal characteristics that have nothing to do with their driving, many good drivers end up paying more than they should or driving uninsured, and it’s one of the reasons premiums are so high inMichigan.”

In August, CPAN issued a report highlighting socioeconomic rating factors used by auto insurance companies in Michigan – including job title, education level, and homeownership status – showing that several insurers charge substantially higher premiums to working class drivers in the state. Unlike sex and marital status, there is no explicit statutory prohibition on the use of those rating factors byinsurance companies, though they may be deemed “unfairly discriminatory,” according to insurance expert Heller.

 


Higher Premiums for Widows, Other Single Women in Michigan Auto Insurance Market

Study Finds Some Insurers Raise Rates on Female and Unmarried Customers Despite Michigan Law Prohibiting Use of Gender or Marital Status for Pricing Car Insurance

Lansing – Widowed drivers in Michigan are charged more by some auto insurers than married drivers of the same age, even if they have perfect driving records, according to new data released today by Michigan’s Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN). Testing also found companies charging women significantly more for basic auto insurance than men, including young men often considered the highest risk drivers.  These surcharges appear to violate Michigan law, which states: “an insurer shall not establish or maintain rates or rating classifications for automobile insurance based on sex or marital status.”

A survey of online premium quotes from several large auto insurers operating in Michigan, found that Progressive and Esurance alter rates for drivers based on their gender and marital status, and Liberty Mutual charges more to unmarried drivers.

  • These three companies raise widows’ and other single women’s premiums between five and ten percent compared with married women;
  • Progressive charges women with perfect driving records as much as 38 percent more than men with the same record, same vehicle, and same address;
  • Esurance charges women with perfect driving records as much as 33 percent more than men with the same record, same vehicle, and same address; and
  • Other insurers tested, including Allstate and AAA, appear to comply with state law and do not vary rates based on gender or marital status.

“It is both unseemly and improper to increase prices for someone when her spouse dies,” said Douglas Heller, an independent insurance expert who conducted the research for the Coalition Protecting No-Fault (CPAN). “Michigan law is supposed to prevent insurance companies from charging more to women or unmarried drivers, but some insurers seem to be ignoring the law and charging hundreds of dollars more to drivers simply because they are female, single, divorced, or widowed.”

Using insurance companies’ websites, Heller compared nearly 100 premium quotes provided to male and female drivers of different marital statuses and ages. The research also looked at whether the patterns changed based on geography, testing rates in both Detroit and Brighton, Michigan. Throughout the testing, other factors such as address, type of car, and annual miles were held constant.  In all instances, the drivers tested had perfect records with no accidents, tickets, or claims.

“This study reveals yet another unfair factor that insurance companies use to make extra profits at the expense of Michiganders,” said State Representative Donna Lasinski (D – Scio Twp). “Discriminating in rates based on sex or marital status is illegal, but also fundamentally wrong. We need to make sure that good drivers have good rates, period.”

Progressive and Esurance charged between 10 percent and 38 percent more to women than men in Detroit, in one instance nearly $1,000 per year, despite all drivers tested having a clean driving record (see Figure 1).  The same pricing structure was evident in Brighton, though the penalty for “driving while female” was somewhat less with the increases on female drivers ranging from 3 percent to 26 percent.

“There is no reason to punish good drivers based on their sex, and Michigan law is right to prohibit it,” said Heller.  “But when gender is used as a factor, no one in or out of the insurance business thinks that young male drivers are the ones who should get the discounts, so it is very strange to see companies charging hundreds of dollars more to young women than young men.”

Three companies also charged different rates to married and unmarried drivers. Liberty Mutual, Progressive, and Esurance charged widows (female drivers whose spouse is deceased), higher premiums than if their spouse were still alive. Figure 2 shows the widow penalty in both Detroit and Brighton.

Notably, the testing found that married male drivers actually saw premiums from Progressive and Esurance drop after they became widowers, though Liberty Mutual consistently applied a 5 percent surcharge on all drivers who lose a spouse, regardless of their sex.

“Women already struggle for equal pay, and here we have insurance companies piling on by charging women drivers more for auto insurance. It is a blatant violation of the law and must be stopped,” said State Representative Sherry Gay-Dagnogo, who chairs the Detroit Caucus and also serves on the House Insurance Committee.

As with the widow penalty, insurers charged more to divorced and single women than married woman, as shown in Figure 3. Once again, however, Progressive and Esurance lowered rates for 35 year old men after a divorce, even as they hiked premiums for female divorcees. Liberty Mutual charged more to divorced drivers whether male or female.

“Under state law, every driver must purchase auto insurance, whether they are male or female, married or not, and good drivers should get the best prices, regardless of their sex or marital status,” said Heller.  “When insurance companies are allowed to slice, dice, and price Michiganders according to personal characteristics that have nothing to do with their driving, many good drivers end up paying more than they should or driving uninsured, and it’s one of the reasons premiums are so high in Michigan.”

In August, CPAN issued a report highlighting socioeconomic rating factors used by auto insurance companies in Michigan – including job title, education level, and homeownership status – showing that several insurers charge substantially higher premiums to working class drivers in the state. Unlike sex and marital status, there is no explicit statutory prohibition on the use of those rating factors by insurance companies, though they may be deemed “unfairly discriminatory,” according to insurance expert Heller.

###

Figure 1. Annual Premiums in Detroit Differ for Male and Female Good Drivers

Figure 1. Annual Premiums in Detroit Differ for Male and Female Good Drivers

 

Figure 2. Widow Penalty: Insurers Raise Premiums on Good Drivers After Spouse’s Death

Figure 2. Widow Penalty: Insurers Raise Premiums on Good Drivers After Spouse’s Death

 

Figure 3. Increase (Decrease) After Divorce

Figure 3. Increase (Decrease) After Divorce


Michigan Auto Insurers Among Worst in Nation for Low-Mileage Discounts

Michigan Drivers Get Few Breaks for Staying Off the Roads But Get Punished for Job Title and Other Socioeconomic Characteristics

Lansing – Auto insurance companies provide much smaller discounts to low-mileage customers in Michigan compared to the rest of the country, according to a new report published by InsuranceQuotes.com.  The national study shows that the premium difference between Michigan motorists who drive 5,000 miles per year and those driving 15,000 miles is only 3.5% compared with countrywide average difference of 8.4%.

As one insurance expert, John Espenschied, told InsuranceQuotes.com, “More miles driven simply means a higher potential of being involved in an accident, which means you’re going to pay more for insurance.” However, because state rules governing auto insurance prices and insurance company practices differ from state to state, the impact of mileage on customers’ premiums varies widely.

“If you drive significantly less each year, you should pay significantly less for auto insurance,” said Douglas Heller, an independent insurance expert who has conducted research for the Coalition to Protect Auto No-Fault (CPAN). “Unfortunately in Michigan, cutting back on your driving hardly puts a dent in your premium while in other states it can save twice as much or more.”

Heller noted that the weak discounts offered in Michigan should be contrasted with the substantial penalties that several auto insurers place on drivers for socioeconomic factors that have nothing to do with their driving, including their job title, level of education, and home ownership status. In a report released earlier this month, CPAN pointed to rate increases as high as $1,000 per year for good drivers solely due to their socioeconomic status.

“A lot of working families have lowered the number of miles they drive every year because they can’t afford the gas or the time off work, but they don’t see commensurate savings on their insurance,” said Heller. “On the other hand, they pay higher premiums because they work in a blue collar job, don’t have a college degree or don’t own their home.”

According to the InsuranceQuotes.com report, motorists in Michigan who drive 5,000 miles per year only saved $43 compared with those driving 20,000 miles. Californians’ premiums dropped by $209 for the same lower mileage driver. Under California law, insurance companies must emphasize a driver’s safety record and annual mileage as the two most important factors in pricing auto insurance.

“Rates in Michigan would come down for many drivers, and more people would be able to afford coverage, if the state demanded that insurance companies place more of an emphasis on driving related factors like annual mileage and less on factors that have nothing to do with driving,” said Heller. “Since the government requires that every Michigan driver purchase auto insurance, there is a special duty to make sure the companies selling it are pricing it reasonably.”

###


Working Class Michiganders with Perfect Driving Records Often Pay Hundreds More for Auto Insurance

New Research Finds Several Large Auto Insurers Penalize Drivers with Less Education, Working Class Occupations and Rented Homes

Lansing – Good drivers can face premium hikes of more than $1,200 per year for Michigan’s state-required minimum auto insurance coverage due solely to their level of education, job title, and whether or not they own their home, according to new research commissioned by Michigan’s Coalition to Protect Auto No-Fault (CPAN).

The study, which tested premiums in eight different cities and towns across the state, finds that several large insurers vary rates based on drivers’ personal and economic characteristics that are not related to driving safety in a manner that consistently harms working class and unemployed drivers, even when they have unblemished driving records.

“We found that several large insurers charge significantly higher rates to motorists in Michigan with perfect driving records simply because of their job title, schooling, and home ownership status,” said Douglas Heller, an insurance expert who conducted the study. “For a lot of good drivers in Michigan, their car insurance costs much more than it should because they are working class, while investment bankers, lawyers, and those in executive roles get steep discounts on their auto premiums.”

Among the findings from the five insurance companies tested, the report shows:

  • Insurance companies charge good drivers in Michigan $233 more per year – 12 percent more on average — for basic auto insurance when they have blue collar jobs or are out of work, don’t have a college degree, and rent rather than own their home;
  • Liberty Mutual, Progressive, and Esurance increase premiums the most for working class and unemployed residents, averaging $483 more across the state for people out-of-work compared to lawyers with the same driving record;
  • A factory worker living in Detroit, Flint, or Warren pays an average of $265 more for auto insurance than an investment banker for the same policy. Even if both have perfect driving records and live at the same address, some working class drivers will pay as much as $694 more per year for basic auto insurance; and
  • In smaller towns, such as Howell, Ludington, and Owosso, good drivers face price increases as high as $457 per year based solely on their personal and economic status.

“We force every driver in Michigan to buy auto insurance, but we allow insurance companies to charge good drivers more if they are factory workers or cashiers instead of bankers or lawyers,” said CPAN President John Cornack. “That makes no sense, it’s unfair, and it’s one of the reasons that auto insurance is too expensive for so many working class Michiganders, even if they’ve never caused an accident or filed a claim.”

The study quoted 240 online premiums for good drivers in eight cities and towns: Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Howell, Iron Mountain, Ludington, Owosso, and Warren. The same address, car model, miles driven, and prior insurance history were used, and the basic state-mandated minimum insurance coverage was sought for each quote. The only factors that varied in the testing were the driver’s occupation, level of education, and whether she rented or owned her home. The tests exclusively considered premiums for people with perfect driving histories and no prior claims.

The research considered premiums quoted by AAA, Allstate, Esurance, Liberty Mutual, Progressive, and State Farm, which represent more than half of the Michigan auto insurance market, and for which extensive testing can be performed online.

The study found good drivers in Detroit, Warren, and Flint face the most severe penalties from insurance companies, but workers and financially struggling families throughout the state are also often punished.

“State law requires that Michigan drivers buy auto insurance, but it doesn’t protect blue collar workers and out-of-work residents from abusive pricing practices by insurance companies,” said Heller. “Pricing people based on their job-type or education or home ownership not only has nothing to do with their safety on the roads, it makes it harder for financially-strapped drivers to maintain their coverage.”

###

Download the Full Report: http://protectnofault.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Socioeconomic-Status-and-Auto-Insurance-Rates-in-Michigan_8.1.17.pdf

 

About the Report’s Author:

Douglas Heller is an independent consultant and nationally recognized insurance expert.  During nearly two decades of work on public policy and regulatory matters related to property-casualty insurance, Heller has written several reports on auto insurance pricing in the United States, overseen regulatory challenges to insurance company rates and practices, and, for nine years, served as the Executive Director of the national consumer advocacy organization, Consumer Watchdog.


CPAN President John Cornack Talks with Frank Beckmann About No-Fault Fraud

The Detroit Free Press posted a story this week detailing a complex scheme between Southeast Michigan doctors and lawyers to illegally profit from Michigan’s no-fault system. The report is based on an affidavit from Dr. Ram Gunabalan, which details a coordinated series of kickbacks between attorneys and health care providers treating auto accident victims.

CPAN President John Cornack recently sat down with WJR radio host Frank Beckmann to discuss the Free Press reports and why stopping auto insurance fraud is a crucial piece of CPAN’s plan to improve Michigan’s no-fault system.

Make sure to listen to the interview below.

 

 


CPAN Members Outraged by Revelations of Auto Insurance Kickback Scheme, Offer Solutions to Stop Fraud

LANSING – The Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN) responded today to reports by the Detroit Free Press detailing a complex scheme between Southeast Michigan doctors and lawyers to illegally profit from Michigan’s no-fault system.

“The allegations in this report are very serious,” said CPAN President John Cornack. “If found to be true, this type of behavior damages the entire no-fault system and those who work so hard to protect it.”

The report is based on an affidavit from Dr. Ram Gunabalan, which details a coordinated series of kickbacks between attorneys and health care providers treating auto accident victims.

“CPAN is shocked and disgusted by the accusations made in the Free Press stories. These are exactly the types of fraudulent practices that our organization is hoping to root out of Michigan’s no-fault system through our reform proposals,” said Cornack. “Every time no-fault fraud takes place, it makes it that much harder for legitimate accident victims to get the care they need. We look forward to working with the legislature to tackle this issue as soon as they return to Lansing.”

CPAN has proposed a comprehensive package of 24 reforms to Michigan’s no-fault system that will reduce auto insurance fraud, improve consumer protections and reduce costs while still ensuring catastrophic accident victims have access to the care they need. Details of CPAN’s no-fault reforms can be found at FixNoFault.org.

 

###


Covenant Medical Center v. State Farm: A Disastrous Destabilization of Michigan’s Auto No-Fault System

By:  CPAN Legal Team

On May 25, 2017, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of Covenant Medical Center, Inc., v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.  In a 5-1 decision, the Court took away significant legal rights of healthcare providers who care for auto accident victims.  The Court held that healthcare providers do not have a right under the No-Fault Act to sue no-fault insurers for services rendered to patients.  As the Court stated:  “We therefore hold that healthcare providers do not possess a statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits under the no-fault act.”

The Covenant decision marks a radical departure from over 20 years of case law from the Michigan Court of Appeals, who repeatedly held that healthcare providers had a statutory cause of action against no-fault insurers.  Yet the Covenant Court called such longstanding decisions “unconvincing” and “devoid of the statutory analysis necessary to support that premise.”

Unfortunately, the Covenant decision begs more questions than it answers.  The Court offered little or no guidance on critical issues surrounding the implementation of the holding, including the following:

  • Retroactivity v. Prospectivity: The Court did not address whether its decision is retroactive (i.e., applying to all cases currently in litigation) or prospective (i.e., applying to cases filed after the decision).  The answer to this question will have enormous financial implications for healthcare providers who have pending lawsuits that relied on the established case law that Covenant overruled, and it could therefore result in hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid medical expenses.  Unfortunately, the Court has left the answer to this question to the trial courts – a process that will result in significant delay, confusion, and inconsistency.
  • Assignments of Benefits from Patient to Provider: In an important footnote, the Court stated: “[O]ur conclusion today is not intended to alter an insured’s ability to assign his or her right to past or presently due benefits to a healthcare provider.”  Yet Section 3143 of the No-Fault Act prohibits the assignment of future  There will thus be great uncertainty over how to handle cases involving assignments, particularly when a provider continues to render treatment to an injured person while litigation is pending.

One result is clear: Covenant puts the injured person in the cross-hairs of litigation.  The Court held that a healthcare provider’s sole recourse is to “seek payment from the injured person for the provider’s reasonable charges.”  Thus, healthcare providers will now be forced to sue their patients for unpaid balances.  This will mean more auto accident victims retaining more lawyers and more lawsuits filed – all of which our no-fault system was designed to avoid.


Michigan Supreme Court Ruling Pits Patients Against Providers When Insurers Refuse to Pay

LANSING – The Michigan Supreme Court yesterday ruled in a landmark decision that will prevent medical providers from suing insurance companies on behalf of auto accident patients for payment of services rendered. The case, Covenant Medical Center v State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, is expected to result in a windfall of profits for insurance companies and will greatly increase lawsuits in Michigan’s no-fault system while leaving patients on their own without a safety net.

“This decision is a nightmare for consumers. It puts patients squarely in the crosshairs of litigation, because health care providers will no longer be able to battle insurance companies on behalf of their patients. The responsibility will be placed solely on the patient to make sure their insurance company is reimbursing their doctor for the treatments received,” said CPAN President John Cornack. “This will create scenarios where doctors and hospitals will be forced to sue the very same patients they are caring for, and then patients will turn around and sue their insurance companies. Everyone will be lawyering up and litigation will go through the roof, which is exactly what no-fault insurance was designed to avoid.”

Cornack notes the decision will likely result in millions of dollars of medical expenses going unpaid because many patients will not have the knowhow or resources to fight for the services they need.

“It is well documented that medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy, and this Supreme Court decision will only add to that problem,” said Cornack.

The Supreme Court decision may retroactively impact current auto accident cases, which could result in the dismissal of thousands of lawsuits across the state against auto insurance companies that have not paid medical expenses.

“This is yet another example of how insurance companies are using the courts to rewrite Michigan’s auto insurance laws,” said Cornack. “The thousands of patients who will lose their care due to this case will mean a multi-million dollar windfall for auto insurance companies while people suffer. CPAN is calling on lawmakers to immediately take action to correct the injustices of this case and protect patients across the state from the financial ruin that will surely result if it is allowed to stand.”

 

###