Reports and Related Materials

CPAN Analysis of House Bill 5013 — the Duggan/Leonard PIP Cap Legislation

Posted October 3, 2017
CPAN legal counsel has conducted its analysis of House Bill 5013, which could dramatically and negatively impact Michigan’s no-fault insurance system.

Background Information Regarding CPAN V The Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) “The Transparency Lawsuit”

Posted March 14, 2015
The background document provides a detailed explanation of the CPAN “transparency” lawsuit against the MCCA including the current status of the case.

CPAN Analysis of Senate Bill 248

Posted Apr 21, 2015
CPAN legal counsel has issued its analysis of Senate Bill 248. Download it here.

An Analysis of the Profitability and Pricing in the Michigan Auto Insurance Market by Jay Angoff

Posted Sep 15, 2014
“An Analysis of the Profitability and Pricing in the Michigan Auto Insurance Market,” examined publicly available information filed by the MCCA as well as annual reports from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Among the key findings in the report is the fact that the MCCA’s own data indicates its annual surcharges on drivers’ insurance policies are about 15 percent higher than necessary over the long term, and more than 27 percent higher since 2004.

CPAN Analysis of HB 4959

Posted Oct 3, 2013
Recently introduced HB 4959 gives Medicare eligible citizens the right to opt-out of mandatory no-fault coverage. Download CPAN’s analysis explaining why this legislation is detrimental to Michigan seniors and the state auto no-fault system as a whole.

CPAN Summary Analysis of HB 4612

Posted April 23, 2013
On April 23, 2013, HB 4612 was introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives. The Bill imposes unprecedented dollar cap limitations on medical benefits and significantly restricts what treatment, services, and benefits are available to persons injured in motor vehicle accidents. Download CPAN’s analysis summarizing this bill.

Summary of Birny Birnbaum’s analysis of the MCCA Financial and claims reporting practices

Posted Oct 11, 2012
The MCCA claims it is unsustainable… The available data tells a different story.

The Impact of Reducing PIP Coverage in Michigan

Posted Aug 1, 2011
In the fall of 2010, the Michigan Brain Injury Provider Council:1 asked Public Sector Consultants (PSC) to analyze the potential impact of limiting the amount of coverage required for personal protection insurance (also referred to as personal injury protection or PIP) under Michigan’s no fault system for reparations related to automobile accidents. A recent report has suggested that automobile insurance rates and the percentage of automobile owners carrying the required coverage are adversely affected by Michigan’s current requirement for PIP coverage, 2 but the benefits that could be lost and the potential for cost-shifting if the coverage requirement is modified have not been thoroughly explored. To more fully understand the potential impact of reducing the coverage requirement for PIP under Michigan’s No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, we have examined the following issues:

  • What benefits are associated with personal protection insurance required under Michigan’s current no-fault system?
  • What is the cost burden associated with catastrophic motor vehicle–related injuries, specifically traumatic brain injuries (TBI)?
  • Who currently pays for costs associated with motor vehicle–related injuries and how might the cost burden be shifted to the state and other payers if the coverage requirement for PIP were reduced?

Impact of Proposed “PIP Choice” Law in Michigan

Posted Aug 1, 2011
The purpose of this report is to quantify the effects that the proposed legislation would have on the output, earnings, and employment of Michigan’s industries, as well as discuss its effects on individuals. (The Michigan Legislature, in 2011, was considering amending the Michigan Code of Insurance to significantly lower the minimum amount of personal injury protection drivers are required to purchase. The proposed legislation would have allowed policy holders to choose from the following levels of PIP coverage for products and services necessary to an injured person’s care, recovery and rehabilitation: $50,000, $100,000, $200,000, $400,000 and $500,00 and lifetime.)