Below is a comment from one of my not-so-biggest fans in response to my recent guest editorial in the Detroit Free Press: Profits, not medical claims, drive up the cost of auto insurance in Michigan:

“Stephen M. Gursten, the writer of this article, is an ambulance chasing lawyer…”

Do you know I am now actually getting my own “hate mail?” I’ve been speaking out against the insurance industry’s push to change No Fault insurance in Michigan.  And as a result, I’ve received some rather nasty comments posted in the Detroit Free Press, on Facebook and in response to my blogs.  I’ve even received my own hate mail.

The comments seem to be coming from two different groups:

1. The first is people from the insurance industry who are angry that I’m calling them out on the lies they are spreading about No Fault reform, such as the one lately about insurance companies losing money in Michigan (they are actually amazingly profitable).
2. The second group are the internet trolls and haters out there. These are people who hide behind the anonymity of the internet and do not engage in substantive discussion. They just leave nasty comments.  These are the people leaving the comments about me being an ambulance chaser, but they don’t say it very nicely.

An ambulance chaser? Moi?

It is certainly interesting  to be called names like “ambulance chasing lawyer” by people who don’t know anything about me or  my law practice.  It is hard to understand how I can be an ambulance chaser when my law firm does no TV, does no Yellow Pages advertising, does not appear on billboards or on buses.  Almost all of my cases are referred to me, mostly from other Michigan personal injury lawyers.

I’ve also been one of  the leading proponents of raising the standard for attorney ethics in this state – even having been asked to speak before the Michigan Legislature – on the scandal of other Michigan personal injury lawyers soliciting accident victims at home and why this must be stopped.

If I were an ambulance chasing personal injury lawyer, I must be the most incompetent ambulance chaser ever. But that’s really beside the point.

Thank you Seth Godin, thank you New York Times

Yet there have been a few moments, I must confess, when I’ve wondered if it’s worth it to be putting myself out there and taking this abuse.  I’ve wondered if it is worth all the time and energy I’m expending fighting to protect the people of this state who would be hurt by what the insurance companies want to do. The people who desperately need the legal protections afforded by our No Fault insurance laws.

And let’s clear up something right now: If I were only pursuing my own naked self-interests (yes, as a personal injury lawyer), I would be in favor of these No Fault caps.  The lower the caps, the better.

I could make a lot more money.

If the Republicans and the insurance companies have their way, caps on No Fault insurance would be great for the insurance companies and for the trial lawyers.  But it’s everyone else who gets hurt — all the people who have been so catastrophically injured in car accidents, many of whom I’ve helped throughout the years and who are still such a huge part of my life today — that cause me to speak out against this.

If it were just a matter of maximizing my own personal self-interest and putting the most dollars in my own pocket, I wouldn’t be taking the stand against this that I have.

I mention all of this because on Saturday morning I read something that reminded me of how important it is to continue to speak out for what I believe is right.

The first was a blog  from Seth Godin. Seth Godin is one of my favorite writers, and he’s a wonderful source of inspiration and ideas.

Seth wrote a blog named “It’s Thomas Midgeley day.” It is about a man responsible for millions of deaths that he indirectly caused by lying about a dangerous product, so he and his bosses could get rich.  They knew it was dangerous.  And they continued to lie and call it safe.

Seth writes:

“Does this sound familiar? An entrenched industry needs the public and its government to ignore what they’re doing so they can defend the status quo and extract the maximum value from their assets.  They sow seeds of doubt, and remind themselves (and us) of the profits and the money…people…actively lie as they engage in PR campaigns aimed at belittling or undermining those that are brave enough to point out just how damaging the status quo is.”

That same day, I read an article in the New York Times, “Learning from Litigation,” that refutes the common belief that it is the injury lawyers filing tort lawsuits that drive up costs. To the contrary, the story explains how it is those “ambulance chasing trial lawyers” – and the threat of lawsuits that lawyers file – that provide an enormous but mostly uncalculated benefit to society.

It turns out it is those pesky injury lawyers and “ambulance chasers” lead to fewer mistakes.  That, in turn, saves countless lives. Personal injury lawyers are responsible for making  many of the ordinary things that we take for granted,  from infant pajamas and cribs to cars, safer for us all.

In short, it is often only the threat of lawsuits that stop the modern-day Thomas Midgeleys, who would otherwise lie and knowingly endanger the public to maximize their own profits.

It is the threat of lawyers holding these modern-day Thomas Midgeleys, the  people who would lie to pursue profits at the expense of our safety, that provides an enormous (albeit indirect and harder to calculate) economic benefit to us all.

So go ahead, all of you Thomas Midgeleys out there. Go ahead, you propagandists and lobbyists and shills hired by the insurance companies. And all of you internet trolls and haters out there, you can keep calling me all of those terrible names.  Keep calling me an ambulance chaser.

It won’t stop me from speaking out against what is right.

Want the latest No Fault Reform updates? Sign up for our free guide and newsletter!

The post Why I’m speaking out in the No Fault insurance reform debate appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company has decided to enter the No Fault reform propaganda war.  Too bad its claims are completely false.

Michigan’s auto insurance companies are “highly profitable,”  contrary to the recent inaccurate and rather sensationalistic claims by Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company.

On its Facebook page on May 13, 2013, Michigan Millers Mutual made the following outlandish and unsubstantiated claim:

“In terms of the excessive profits made by insurance carriers, nothing could be further from the truth as Michigan has been THE most unprofitable state in the country for private passenger auto insurance and Michigan policyholders are paying the 8th highest rates in the country because of this provision. In 2011, A.M. Best, the primary financial rating organization for all insurance carriers, reported that for every $1 in no fault premium collected, $2.42 was paid out in claims.”

But here are the  facts:

• Michigan auto insurers are “highly profitable,” according to a former state insurance commissioner.
• Michigan auto insurers’ profitability has not only been positive and comparable to other industries, but it has also allowed insurers to lower auto insurance prices, according to the Insurance Institute of Michigan.
• Nearly 80 auto insurers wrote $1 million or more in auto premiums and there are more than 700 auto insurers authorized to do business in Michigan, none of which would be the case if Michigan’s auto insurance market were as “unprofitable” as Michigan Millers Mutual would like people to believe.
• Michigan auto insurers collected more than $2 billion more in auto premiums than they paid out in claims in 2011.
• Michigan No Fault insurers collected more $673 million more in No Fault premiums than they paid out in No Fault claims in 2011.

To paraphrase  MMM in terms of whether auto insurance companies are losing money: “nothing could be further from the truth.”

Michigan auto insurance companies are ‘highly profitable’

• Michigan auto insurance companies have been “highly profitable” and have been “significantly more profitable than the national average,” according to former state Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff’s study, “An Analysis of the Profitability and Performance of the Michigan Auto Insurance Market.”
• The Insurance Institute of Michigan and its Executive Director Pete Kuhnmuench have been emphatic and unequivocal about Michigan auto insurers’ profitability: “Recent profitability has enabled companies to decrease auto insurance premiums over the past several years. … ‘The insurance industry’s profitability also has a positive impact on the state of Michigan. … Michigan profits are comparable to other industries. … ‘The competitive market is working in Michigan. Insurance companies are profitable which allows them to reduce premiums …’” (Insurance Institute of Michigan, “Insurance Industry Stability Benefits Michigan,” 6/7/2007 press release quoting Executive Director Pete Kuhnmuench)
• There were 78 auto insurance companies doing more than $1 million in business in Michigan in 2011, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alone, took in more than $1 billion in auto premiums in 2011, according to data from the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services.
• There are approximately 780 auto insurers authorized to do business in Michigan, according to April 10, 2013, “No Fault Certification List – Insurers That Are Certified Under Section 500.3163,” maintained by the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services.

Billions of dollars in unused auto insurance premiums

Michigan auto insurers have more than $2 billion in used auto insurance premiums and nearly $700 million in unused No Fault premiums, according to data and statistics from  the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (whom Gov. Rick Snyder, the Insurance Institute of Michigan, and Rep. Pete Lund rely on):

• “Michigan auto insurance companies collected more than $2 billion more in auto premiums in 2011 than they paid out in claims. They brought in about $6.8 billion in private passenger and commercial auto premiums and paid out some $4.7 billion in losses on private and commercial auto claims, according to data provided to Michigan Auto Law by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation.” (“Steven M. Gursten: Profits, not medical claims, drive up cost of auto insurance in Michigan,” Detroit Free Press, April 11, 2013)
• Michigan No Fault auto insurance companies collected more than $673 million more in No Fault premiums in 2011 than they paid out on No Fault claims. In 2011, Michigan No Fault auto insurers collected a total of $2,898,293,000 in private and commercial “no-fault (personal injury protection)” premiums and paid out $2,224,535,000 on “no-fault (personal injury protection)” claims, according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ (NAIC) “Statistical Compilation of Annual Statement Information” for 2011.

The post Michigan Millers gets it wrong on No Fault insurance company ‘unprofitability’ appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

Caving to pressure from the trucking industry, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has eased up on some of the regulations relating to the issuance of Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs).

As a truck accident lawyer who litigates very serious truck accident cases mostly in Michigan but also in the last decade in other states around the country, I’ve seen the devastating consequences firsthand.  The government began regulating safety with motor carriers because of the numbers of deaths and preventable crashes, and it remains the government’s responsibility to enact and enforce sensible rules to prevent truck accidents.

That is why I am so angry as I write these words about the latest move from the FMCSA, and why the politics behind this move are so frustrating for lawyers and safety advocates.

The past legislation set the standards for obtaining a CDL and established the Commercial Learner’s Permit, which previously did not exist. Now the FMSCA has made several changes to the regulations following truck industry lobbying efforts. The modifications are mostly procedural, but they have very serious safety implications. They went into effect in late April.

The new changes include:

1. Two employees no longer have to verify applications.  Previously, two licensing agency employees had to verify the applicants’ documentation.  The FMCSA stated that this was “burdensome.” Now, two employees no longer have to verify the documents. Whether or not this requirement was burdensome, this can’t be a wise decision. When we’re licensing people to drive fully-loaded 80,000 pound semi-trucks, the interest in keeping our roads safe surely outweighs the “burden” of having two employees verify documents. Checks and balances is always a good way to prevent mistakes.
2. Truckers can do their skills test where they’re trained. Previously, potential drivers could not skills-test to obtain a CDL license at the same facility where he was trained. The FMCSA has changed its mind and now says that it is okay for truck drivers to take their skills tests at the facility where they trained.  My concern is the obvious conflict of interest. Any trucking school that fails too many unfit drivers would lose students to a competing school that is known for a high graduation rate. Once the school that follows the rules starts to lose a lot of students and income to a school with more lax standards, there will likely be no truck driver training school that would attempt to fail a unfit trucker, or even one on the borderline, who was educated at its home facility.
3. Third-party CDL testers that are governmental entities no longer have to maintain bonds to cover re-testing of drivers if fraud is uncovered.
4. States can use different photo techniques for CDLs. States were previously not allowed to use a digital color image or a black and white laser engraved photo of the driver on his or her learner’s permit. Now the states may use these techniques at their discretion.
5. States do not have to conduct background checks on test examiners. This one is a big safety compromise. The FMCSA has now ruled that it’s too “burdensome” to require states to conduct background checks on all test examiners. Now the checks are required only when someone is hired.

With everything in the news about “grasshopper” truckers – drivers who cause too many accidents or kill people and have too many points on their driving record, then hop to different states, sometimes under a different name – the public needs all the safety checks possible to make sure that drivers who cut corners on safety (or just don’t give a damn about safety) are kept off the public roadways.

To me, as a lawyer now, the idea of screening test examiner applicants is one added deterrent.  There is very little cost involved because it would deter unsafe drivers in those states from even applying.  It is a very small and inexpensive measure that will save lives.

The post Unsafe FMCSA Commercial Drivers License (CDL) changes appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

May is Motorcycle Safety Month and National Youth Traffic Safety Month, so this topic couldn’t be more fitting. It sounds counter intuitive to allow teens and even children to ride motorcycles and motorized vehicles, but it is actually legal.  But being legal and safe are too different things.

As an attorney who has helped far too many people injured in motorcycle crashes, I would advise parents to hold off on giving their kids rides on motorcycles. The statistics -  especially with younger riders and supersport, or “crotchrocket” motorcycles – of serious injury show that there is no substitute for experience and the riding judgment that comes with it.

Regarding children and preteens riding motorized vehicles, I couldn’t find any accident statistics, but my concern is that the same issues of poor judgment and decision-making are just as likely to occur on a motorized vehicle as on a motorcycle.

Here are answers to some common questions I receive as an attorney on the laws in Michigan regarding minors riding motorcycles:

Q. Is there a specific age, or weight that children can legally ride as a passenger on a motorcycle?
A. There is no minimum age for a child to ride on a motorcycle, subject to one exception based on size rather than age:

MCL 257.658a states “A passenger shall not ride on a motorcycle unless his or her feet can rest on the assigned foot rests or pegs except…due to a permanent physical disability.”

Q. How old do you have to be to apply for a motorcycle endorsement?
A. To apply for a motorcycle endorsement, teens must be at least 16 years old, and:

• Possess a valid Level 2 or Level 3 Graduated Driver License.
• Successfully complete an approved motorcycle safety course. Visit the Michigan Department of State website at www.Michigan.gov/sos for more information and to locate the motorcycle safety course nearest you.
• Pass the written knowledge test administered at a Secretary of State office.

Q. What is the motorcycle helmet law for minors?
A. A person younger than 21 years old still must wear a helmet approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation when operating or riding on a motorcycle. The requirement that an individual younger than 19 years old must wear a helmet if operating a moped on a public roadway is unchanged.

Due to Michigan’s senseless motorcycle helmet repeal last year, riders who are at least 21 may ride without helmets — only if they carry additional insurance and have passed a motorcycle safety course, or have had their motorcycle endorsement for at least two years.

Please keep these motorcycle safety tips in mind – especially for minors

5 steps to choosing the perfect and most safe motorcycle helmet 

Safety tips for ORV driving in Michigan

How to avoid skinning yourself alive – wear the right motorcycle gear

Michigan motorcycle accident resource center

The post Minors on motorcycles: What are the laws in Michigan? appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

Rep. Phil Cavanagh (D-Redford Township), makes an incredibly important point in his guest blog post today.

Referring to testimony at the recent House Insurance Committee hearing on House Bill 4612 that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association is “unsustainable” and it is hurting insurers’ credit ratings  (when did this become a concern of the Michigan Legislature?), Rep. Cavanagh asks the obvious and logical question:

“Well, if the problem is the MCCA, then why are we not looking into the MCCA?  This bill does nothing but protect the insurance company’s interest and it shields the MCCA from public scrutiny … This legislation should not even be considered by anyone in the legislature without asking to look into the ‘problem’ – the MCCA.”

On April 16, 2013, Rep. Cavanagh  sponsored House Bill 4551, which proposed that the MCCA be required to comply with the Michigan Open Meetings Act and the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. Previously, Rep. Cavanagh sponsored similar legislation: House Bill 6080 (2012); House Bill 6081 (2012); House Bill 4785 (2011); and House Bill 4786 (2011).

Additionally, in 2012, based on claims that Michigan’s “current [No Fault] law is broken and unsustainable and that insurance companies cannot maintain the level of benefits for drivers and those suffering long-term catastrophic injuries in auto accidents,” Rep. Cavanagh introduced House Resolution 228 to “implore the Michigan Department of Treasury to conduct a financial review of the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) to consider the appointment of an emergency financial manager.”

Accordingly, Michigan Auto Law is honored to share Rep. Cavanagh’s guest blog post regarding MCCA transparency and No Fault reform:

“Since 1978 Michigan drivers have been paying an annual assessment to the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association which was established by amending the ‘No-Fault Act’ to spread the risk of high cost medical claims related to auto accidents.

The MCCA, however, has decided to create a reserve fund of 15 times their annual expenditures on medical care which are invested in stocks and/or bonds and earn income for the MCCA. Right now, that reserve is over $14 billion and is estimated to climb to over $16 billion by June 2013.

Every year, the MCCA board determines what Michigan auto policy holders will pay per vehicle, so in effect they are actually levying a tax on each person who owns a vehicle. The assessment changes per year based on investment, income, cost of medical care and the assumed need to build up the asset base. Although the MCCA was created by state statute, they are considered a private entity and therefore is not subject to the Open Meetings Act, the Freedom of Information Act; nor is there any enforcement over this entity even though their actions have a major impact on every insured driver across the State of Michigan.

In March on this year, I along with Representative Callton introduced bi-partisan legislation (House Bills 4551 and 4543) to bring transparency throughout the MCCA.  These bills would require the MCCA to be subject to the Open Meetings Act, the Freedom of Information Act, an independent annual audit and put a member of the public on the board. This is not the first time legislation of this kind has been introduced, and in fact, I introduced this same legislation last session to no avail.

Since 2000, the annual assessment imposed by the MCCA has increased over 2500% with the latest increase of $11.00 to hit drivers this June, increasing the fee from $175.00 to $186.00 per year. The only justification Michigan drivers received from the MCCA for this increase is that they are ‘unsustainable’ with a 30-year projected deficit of $2 billion dollars. So what happens when the MCCA reports a surplus of $16 billion and a projected 30-year deficit of $2 billion? Legislation is introduced to reform Michigan’s Auto No-Fault System and phase out the MCCA.

On April 23, 2013, Representative Pete Lund introduced House Bill 4612 to drastically ‘reform’ Michigan’s Auto No-Fault system.  As introduced, the bill would make numerous amendments to the No-Fault Automobile Insurance statute including putting a $1 million cap on medical and rehabilitation benefits for anyone injured in an auto accident, change the term “reasonable necessary” to “medically appropriate”, impose limitations on expenses and reimbursements, phase out the MCCA and create the MCCC (Michigan Catastrophic Claims Corporation), lower PIP benefits for Michigan residents and nonresidents, impose attendant care limits and put a cap on home modification limits and motor vehicle modification limits to name a few.

And what will Michigan drivers get in return for these horrific changes to our system, they get a guaranteed savings of $125 per insured vehicle for the first year and the new MCCC with claims they will be transparent.

The new MCCC will start off by assessing a fee of $25 per year and this money will be under the control of the governor. Once the MCCA has been completely dissolved, meaning they have no more catastrophically injured persons to care for, if there are funds left over they will transferred to the MCCC, not returned to drivers like stated in the Governor’s press conference on April 18. By transferring the money into the MCCC, the MCCA claims to be ‘returning money to driver.’

According to the MCCA Plan of Operation, under section 9.08, the MCCA Board can meet at any time, declare a surplus, and distribute that surplus amongst the members-meaning the insurance companies. I question if the public will ever see any portion of the $16 billion amassed and stockpiled over the last 35 years (especially over the last 12 years); or if the MCCA Board will just meet, declare a surplus, and distribute the money amongst themselves.

I sat through the two days of testimony before the Insurance Committee voted it out of committee. During testimony the Director of the Department of Insurance and Financial Services, Kevin Clinton, and various insurance agencies testified that insurance companies are hampered because the MCCA is unsustainable and it’s affecting their credit ratings. Well, if the problem is the MCCA, then why are we not looking into the MCCA?  This bill does nothing but protect the insurance company’s interest and it shields the MCCA from public scrutiny by phasing the Association out while allowing them to continue assessing drivers an annual fee until their ‘deficits’ have been paid off. Throughout this process, the MCCA would remain shrouded in secrecy and would continue to keep the public in the dark by not opening their books to the public. This legislation should not even be considered by anyone in the legislature without asking to look into the ‘problem’ – the MCCA.

With the claims made against the financial stability of the MCCA during testimony and the recent article in MLive which reported that IRS filings shows the MCCA top two executive received 19% pay increases over the last two years in times of financial difficulties, not to mention the $212 million in a Cayman Island account, transparency is needed now more than ever. With the lack of interest by the State Legislature to take up the pending legislation to bring accountability and transparency throughout the MCCA, I wonder if this Auto No-Fault ‘Reform’ is just a political ploy to abscond with the billions of dollars that drivers have contributed to the MCCA in order to fund their political agenda, and repay favors.”

Related information:

MCCA should not operate in greater secrecy than the CIA

4 dirty little secrets about the MCCA’s latest assessment increase

The post Rep. Phil Cavanagh calls for scrutiny of the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

Here’s the full story on NPR Michigan Radio:

Could changes to auto Personal Injury Protection cost more than they save?

For more information, you can also check out our Michigan No Fault Reform Resource Center. No Fault reform proposals include capping necessary medical benefits from anywhere from $50,000 (Reps. Virgil Smith and Joseph Hune) to $1 million (Rep. Pete Lund and Gov. Snyder).

But the math just doesn’t add up. The reality is that PIP portion of auto insurance is only 5% higher than national average, according to the Insurance Information Institute. So for what likely will be a one-time savings for one year of $125 dollars (as proposed by Snyder), we are going to dismantle the best No fault auto insurance law in the nation.

And running the numbers under Snyder’s proposal, HB 4612, Michigan drivers may even end up paying more for auto insurance after the one year is up, since the legislation only guarantees one year of savings.

While insurance companies get to pocket the savings, the burden gets shifted to all of us as taxpayers, because auto accident victims with catastrophic injuries beyond the cap amounts will still need medical care and treatment.  Only now they will get pushed onto tax payer-funded Medicaid after they lose their life savings.

Further, people who require 24-hour care would lose attendant care benefits and will find the quality of care slashed. And with rate and hour caps for attendant care, these auto accident victims will  be institutionalized into low-quality care nursing homes that bill Medicaid to receive their around-the-clock nursing care.

The NPR story backs up my point: “If people had to depend on Medicaid, they’d have to spend all their assets, basically go broke to qualify, and then taxpayers pick up the bill.”

And all of this will be lost, for the sake of a one-time savings of $125 for our  auto no fault insurance?

What is undisputed is that Michigan has the best insurance law in the nation. We are being asked to give up everything, in exchange for the benefit of giving up all of these fantastic protections AND paying more within one year.

That’s a really bad deal.

Even Pete Kuhnmuench, executive director of the Insurance Institute of Michigan, calls Michigan’s no fault law an amazing jewel for the people of this state. Mr. Kuhnmuench had quite a lot of wonderful things to say about Michigan’s No Fault insurance laws and the necessary lifetime medical care it provides injured auto accident victims BEFORE the insurance industry started the aggressive push to change the law.

As I told Mr. Graham, the current no fault reform proposals will do nothing to reduce the cost of auto insurance in the long run.

“For, really, a promise of one-time savings for one year of basically between $125 and $150, we’re going to essentially dismantle the crown jewel of insurance systems in the United States with absolutely no guarantee that rates will be lower starting a year from now.”

The post Attorney Steve Gursten on NPR: Will changes to No Fault auto insurance cost more than they save? appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

Spring is finally here, and that means more people getting some sunshine and going on bike rides to have some fun. May is National Bike Month, which is a great time to hop on your bike and ride, but also to think about bicycle safety to protect yourself.

According to the Michigan Traffic Crash Facts website, in 2011:

• 1,895 bicyclists were involved in motor vehicle crashes in Michigan.
• 24 bicyclists were killed on Michigan roadways in 2011.
• 3:00 PM-5:59 PM were the peak hours for bicyclist involvement in all crashes and injuries.
• 6:00 PM-8:59 PM were the peak hours for bicyclist fatalities.
• Of the 24 bicyclists killed in 2011, 7 seven of these bicyclists had been drinking.

The first and best thing you can do to protect yourself from bicycle accident injuries is simple: Wear your bicycle helmet.

Consider this powerful statistic from  a Centers for Disease Control study, according to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

“Bicycle helmets are 85 to 88 percent effective in mitigating head and brain injuries in all types of bicycle accidents, making the use of helmets the single most effective countermeasure available to reduce head injuries and fatalities resulting from bicycle crashes.”

Here are some important bicycle helmet safety tips for kids.

Bicyclists and obeying traffic laws in Michigan

As an attorney who handles many bicycle accidents in Michigan involving cars, I get a lot of questions from bicyclists on whether or not they have to obey regular traffic laws.

Q. Does a bicyclist have to obey the same traffic laws as a motorist?

A. Yes, according to  Section 257.657 of the Michigan Vehicle Code for the Operation of Bicycles:

“Each person riding a bicycle…upon a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to the provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have application.”

This includes stop signs and stop lights.

Q. Can a bicyclist impede traffic?

A. If the roadway the bicyclist is on has no minimum speed limit, then the bicyclist is part of traffic and therefore, cannot be impeding traffic simply because of their speed or the fact that they are riding a bicycle.

MVC Section 257.657 states: “Each person riding a bicycle…upon a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter…”

MCL 257.69 states: “… traffic means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles, street cars and other conveyances either singly or together while using any highway for purposes of travel.”

Bicycle safety tips

Here are some additional resources on bicycle safety and what happens when you’re injured in a bike accident in Michigan.

Bicycle helmet saves Michigan Auto Law receptionists eye – and a comprehensive list of bicycle safety tips

Why bias against cyclists is rampant and unfair

What happens if I’m injured in a bicycle accident in Michigan?

FAQs on Michigan bike laws: League of Michigan Bicyclists

The post Does a bicyclist have to obey the same traffic laws as a motorist? appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

Gov. Rick Snyder, Rep. Pete Lund, and Michigan’s auto insurance industry claim that their motivation for House Bill 4612 is to save consumers money on auto insurance.

You can review the chart below to see just how much Michigan drivers will be giving up in exchange for a one-time promise of savings of approximately $150. And to read more information about Michigan No Fault reform, visit our comprehensive resource center.

So, for you auto insurance consumers out there, it’s time to have your voices heard:

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR MICHIGAN AUTO INSURANCE?

Share your opinion. Here’s how:

1. Post a comment below.
2. Tweet Michigan Auto Law at @michiganautolaw and/or post a Tweet using the hashtag #NameYourPrice.
3. Post on Michigan Auto Law’s Facebook wall.
4. Post on Google + and mention Michigan Auto Law by using “+Michigan Auto Law.”

After we receive your feedback, we will gather up and organize your comments and opinions in a blog post, which will share not only with you, but also with Gov. Snyder, Rep. Lund, Michigan politicians and Michigan’s auto insurance industry. And we will share the results with you in a new blog.

What is No Fault reform’s ‘raw deal’ worth to you? Or is it ‘no deal’?

The politicians are trying to sell their plan for dismantling or “reforming” Michigan’s No Fault auto insurance system by promising that it will save consumers money (Note: the promised savings expire after one year).

And, you, the consumers have taken to the airwaves, the Internet and the newspapers to declare that you’re paying more than you want to and, most importantly, more than you think you should have to.

In their recently introduced No Fault reform proposal, House Bill 4612, Gov. Snyder and Rep. Pete Lund have promised $150 in savings for one year. This doesn’t include the ongoing Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association assessments, or the $21 million annual assessment to fund the Insurance Fraud and Theft Prevention authorities or the inevitable increases in health insurance costs and/or taxpayers’ Medicaid burden. For more information, read our blog on how HB 4612 could cost you more for your auto insurance.

But their promised, one-year savings of $150 would only reduce Michigan’s average auto insurance rate to $923 – at best. It’s currently $1,073, according to data from the Insurance Institute of Michigan and the data presented by Gov. Snyder at his April 18, 2013, press conference.

Nevertheless, Michigan’s auto insurance consumers are saying $923 is still not low enough.

Given all that consumers are being expected to sacrifice in exchange for the one-year savings of $150, we agree.

As we said in our recently published, “The Auto Insurance Consumers’ Guide to Michigan No Fault Reform and House Bill 4612,” Gov. Snyder’s and Rep. Lund’s proposal for reforming Michigan’s No Fault auto insurance system is a raw deal for Michigan auto insurance consumers.

The following “No Fault Reform Balance Sheet For Consumers” illustrates the point:

No Fault reform balance sheet for consumers

(Page Numbers Refer to House Bill 4612)

Take action – tell the politicians what you expect from them, not the other way around

It’s time for Gov. Snyder, Rep. Lund and the auto insurance industry to level with Michigan’s auto insurance-buying public about what’s truly at stake with No Fault reform.

Gov. Snyder, Rep. Lund and the auto insurance industry must tell the public how they plan to reconcile their lavish “wish list” of “reforms” in HB 4612 with the savings that consumers demand – and have been led to expect – from so-called No Fault reform.

If you haven’t told the Governor, the politicians and the auto insurance industry what you expect No Fault “reform” to deliver in terms of auto insurance savings and lower prices, then now’s the time:

NAME YOUR PRICE.

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PAY FOR MICHIGAN AUTO INSURANCE?

 - Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, from seniorliving.org

The post Name Your Price: What do you want to pay for Michigan auto insurance? appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

As of April 26, 2013, truck drivers with commercial drivers licenses no longer have to to report out-of-state traffic convictions to their home-state licensing agency.

This is because the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMSCA) eliminated the reporting regulation for interstate commercial truck and bus drivers and state licensing offices, stating that the reporting regulation had been made redundant by technological advances.

Wrong.  I personally feel this is a terrible idea.  In our world of state budget cuts, we – not just lawyers but law enforcement, safety directors and insurers – rely ever more on the ticketing state to report the offense to a driver’s home state and specifically the home state’s DMV.

The FMCSA feels this is now being done.  I have less confidence.  As a lawyer who spends a large percentage of my practice dealing with trucking accidents, I’ve seen too many examples of it not be done accurately, or in a timely fashion, or just not at all.  And that was before the sequester and the questions this raises about whether or not the FMCSA will even have the resources and the experienced people to ensure compliance.

It also doesn’t take into account the more complicated truck accident scenarios I see practicing law in Michigan, which borders Canada and the mandate to report cross border violations.

As a lawyer and a safety advocate, I feel this will likely undercut negligent hiring and especially negligent retention claims in trucking litigation cases. And certainly punitive damages cases against companies that knowingly disregarded public safety, because it now gives these companies and their own lawyers an “out.” They can now credibly claim they didn’t know about prior violations and prior truck accidents.

Here’s the full rule on Self Reporting of Out-of-State Convictions, according to the Federal Register notice:

FMCSA amends its commercial driver’s license (CDL) rules to eliminate the requirement for drivers to notify the State licensing agency that issued their commercial learner’s permit (CLP) or CDL of out-of-State traffic convictions when those convictions occur in States that have a certified CDL program in substantial compliance with FMCSA’s rules. Current regulations require both CDL holders and States with certified CDL programs to report a CDL holder’s out-of-State traffic conviction to the driver’s State of licensure. This final rule amends the CDL rules to eliminate this reporting redundancy for those cases in which the conviction occurs in a State that has a certified CDL program in substantial compliance with FMCSA’s regulations. This change will reduce a regulatory burden on individual CLP and CDL holders and State driver licensing agencies. This rule is responsive to Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” issued January 18, 2011.

The new rule assumes too much.  It assumes that if a truck driver or bus driver receives a ticket or causes an preventable crash out of state, and that state has a CDL program, then the traffic conviction will be reported to the driver’s home state and the administrative burden of double reporting will be lifted.

But what happens when it doesn’t?  Because it won’t.  Not all the time.  And it is in the instances where it doesn’t that the public safety and innocent lives become lost.

Related information:

When you need a Commercial Driver’s License and a special endorsement

The post New rule on self-reporting out of state truck accidents will lead to…more truck accidents appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.

How can you possibly distinguish and differentiate yourself in an overcrowded legal market, where the supply is greater than the demand, and where the competition is more fierce than ever before?

And how can you possibly do this as a new lawyer, competing against lawyers with decades more experience than you? I was recently invited to publish a post with my advice for new lawyers on Lawyernomics, an Avvo blog that focuses more on the business of law.

Here’s the full article:

My Advice for New Lawyers: Learn to Be a Trial Lawyer

I love the law, and I love being a lawyer.  But that puts me in a distinct minority of practicing lawyers. The economic pressures of being a lawyer today, starting with often crushing law school debt, and then crushing hours and little personal time are all well-known.

More hidden from new lawyers, or at least students applying for law school, is just the  basic supply and demand of the legal profession today: what do you do when the supply of lawyers is greater than the demand?  What do you do when the volume of competition has reached levels never seen before in most American markets?

The answer to me was to teach myself to be a great trial lawyer.  No matter how many lawyers there are – and there are a lot – there are very few real trial lawyers anymore.  This applies to every practice area of law, but it is especially true of personal injury lawyers.

It’s funny, the “great” lawyers in divorce or business litigation mostly haven’t tried a case in years, sometimes decades.  They are very good litigators (and often very good billers), but they aren’t trial lawyers.  I’ve always thought if the insurance companies push tort “reform” so hard that I can’t practice personal injury law, I could always do extremely well as a divorce lawyer or business litigation lawyer who takes cases to trial.

The lawyers on the other side wouldn’t know what to do.  But most of all, I wanted to help new lawyers.  I truly believe law is a noble profession, not a business, and it is an honorable life spent helping others.

So in this guest post for AVVO, I share my own personal experiences and knowledge on how I came to be an injury lawyer known for helping people severely injured in auto accidents and truck accidents, and how I got to where I am today. It wasn’t glamorous.  It often wasn’t fun. It was a lot of hours and sacrifice.

But if it all ended tomorrow, it would be worth it.

Related information:

Top 10 tips for students and future injury lawyers

The post How I got my start: My advice for new attorneys appeared first on Michigan Auto Law Blog.