Uninsured motorist benefits and underinsured motorist benefits are not required by statute in the state of Michigan, unlike many other states which at minimum require an insurance company to offer such benefits to their insureds. However, UM/UIM benefits can be purchased through many insurers in Michigan, and it is often a good idea for motorists to buy these benefits, because there are unfortunately too many uninsured drivers on the roadways (as well as many grossly “underinsured” drivers – i.e. drivers with only $20,000 in insurance for bodily injury). It is often better to purchase the UM/UIM benefits to protect yourself and your family from substantial loss rather than to risk injury by an uninsured party. Michigan law provides that UM/UIM benefits are a creature of contract since they are not required by any statutory scheme. This means that the claimant’s rights to UM/UIM benefits are generally determined with reference to the express plain language contained in the insurance policy. Different insurers can use different insurance policy language, which means the scope and extent of UM/UIM benefits can vary significantly from one insurance company to another. UM/UIM benefits can protect from the actions of a “hit and run driver” in many instances, as long as the insurance policy language allows for coverage for the negligence of a hit-and-run driver.
In a recent case, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed a motorcyclist who was injured in rush hour traffic on I-696, when a car suddenly slammed on its brakes, causing the motorcyclist to strike the rear end of the car. The driver of the car then left the scene of the accident, unfortunately. The motorcyclist had to overcome the fact that he had struck the rear end of the car. Generally speaking, a motorist who drives into the rear end of another car is presumed to have been negligent in causing the accident. However, in this case, several witnesses testified that the driver who slammed on his brakes suddenly was at fault for causing the accident. Michigan negligence law applies “allocation of comparative fault” principles in most instances, including motor vehicle accidents. The No-Fault Act at MCL 500.3135(2)(b) provides for the allocation of comparative fault in tort or “negligence” actions against an at fault driver. While there is a rebuttable presumption of negligence raised against any driver who hits the rear end of another vehicle, the court observed that that presumption “may be rebutted with the showing of an adequate excuse or justification under the circumstances.” The Court noted that it was the role of the jury to determine the relative fault of the plaintiff-motorcyclist and the car driver, and to apportion fault between the parties. The court noted that the trial testimony provided ample evidence that the car driver was negligent in slamming on its brakes and causing the accident and that the motorcyclist was unable to avoid the accident even using reasonable care to avoid the rear-end accident. The court also awarded attorney fees to the motorcyclist under the case evaluation sanction rule, MCR 2.403. The case was Goodman v John Doe and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, unpublished Court of Appeals docket #323615 and 326547 consolidated and decided June 21, 2016.
Read more about our expertise in motorcycle accidents, UM/UIM benefits, and motor vehicle accidents.
MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT NO FAULT INSURANCE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTAbout the Author
