Liability for Michigan No-Fault Personal Protection Benefits (PIP benefits) is governed by MCL 500.3105. Under Michigan No-Fault Insurance, an insurer is liable to pay benefits for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle, subject to the provisions of the No-Fault Act. An injured party may recover No-Fault benefits, if he or she can demonstrate that the accident aggravated a “preexisting condition.”
In a recent decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals analyzed whether a trial court had properly dismissed a claim for first-party No-Fault benefits under Section 3105, where the trial court found that there was no “objective” evidence of an injury caused by the motor vehicle accident. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, noting that there was no requirement to show “objective manifestation” for the recovery of No-Fault first-party benefits. The court noted that the trial court may have erroneously applied the “threshold injury” and “objective manifestation” requirements that apply to tort actions under Section 3135 of the statute in dismissing the claim for PIP benefits, and reinstated the claim where the claimant was able to show through medical evidence and the testimony of her treating physician that she sustained a number of medical conditions causally related to the motor vehicle accident, including mild traumatic brain injury, post-concussive syndrome, migraine headaches, knots, swellings, and spasms in her neck and trapezius muscle, and increased anxiety.
In what appears to be a relatively straightforward application of the plain language of the No-Fault statute, the court of appeals held that no showing of a “threshold” or objectively manifested injury was required in order to recover Michigan No-Fault PIP first-party benefits. The court noted that the fact that the testimony of the claimant’s previous physician was contradicted by the insurer’s “IME doctors” presented a question of fact to be properly resolved by a jury at trial. The insurer was not entitled to summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims, simply because the doctors the insurance company hired to testify against the claimant’s case offered opinions that the claimant was not hurt. The court of appeals’ unpublished decision is Randall v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished case #327292 decided June 21, 2016.
Learn more about our expertise in car accident law, MI No-Fault insurance law, and NO-Fault insurance PIP benefits.
About the Author
