« First Party Rights | Main | Frequently Asked Questions About Michigan Automobile Accident Law »
Third-Party Rights
THIRD PARTY CLAIMS:
The third-party claim compensates a person injured in an auto accident for damages, such as his or her past, present, and future non-economic losses and any excess economic losses if applicable. A third-party plaintiff is not entitled to sue the negligent driver for compensation for any economic damages which have already been paid or are owed by the plaintiff's own first-party insurance company.
Michigan auto accident third-party claims involve automobile negligence claims. In a third-party claim, a plaintiff sues the driver or owner of a vehicle, alleging negligence causing an auto accident injury. If the driver or owner of the vehicle has no-fault insurance, the person injured in the auto accident may sue him or her for certain damages such as pain and suffering, as long as the claimant's injuries meet the threshold requirement of death, permanent serious disfigurement, or serious impairment of body function. The plaintiff may also sue for any economic losses resulting from the auto accident that exceed the statutory no-fault maximum amount. Claims cannot be made for loss of earning capacity.
The Statute of Limitations or time a person has to file a Third Party lawsuit is 3 years. Minors are allowed until one year past their 18th birthday and there are certain other exceptions for military personnel and those judged mentally incompetent.
If a person sustains bodily injury in a motor vehicle accident caused by the fault (i.e., negligence) of another driver, the Michigan No-Fault Act permits the victim to pursue a liability claim. This liability claim (also called the tort claim or the negligence claim) permits the victim to recover compensation for two types of damages: excess economic loss and non-economic loss. Damages for "excess economic loss" consist of those out of pocket losses that are not compensable by no-fault benefits, i.e., wage loss in excess of the monthly maximum or lasting beyond the three year wage loss benefit period and replacement service expenses in excess of $20 per day or lasting beyond the three year benefit period. Damages for "non-economic loss" consist of those losses that affect a person’s quality of life, such as pain and suffering; incapacity, disability and loss of function; diminished social pleasure and enjoyment; mental anguish and emotional distress, etc. However, under the Michigan no-fault law, an accident victim is only entitled to recover damages for non-economic loss if the victim sustained a "threshold injury." Under the statute, a threshold injury is any one of three things: (1) serious impairment of body function; (2) permanent serious disfigurement; or (3) death. The threshold element of "serious impairment of body function" was recently defined by a statutory amendment to require "an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the injured person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life." The threshold element of "permanent serious disfigurement" is not defined in the statute. Whether an injury rises to the level of "serious impairment of body function" or "permanent serious disfigurement" is a matter that depends upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Obviously, the more serious the injury, the more likely that the injury "crosses the threshold." The best way to determine whether a particular injury satisfies the threshold requirements of the Michigan act is to consult attorneys who specialize in auto no-fault cases. The Michigan statute further provides that non-economic damages are not recoverable if the victim is more than 50% at fault, or if the victim was driving an uninsured vehicle at the time of the accident which was owned by the victim.
Even though a threshold injury is required in order to recover non-economic damages under the Michigan No-Fault Act, a threshold injury is not required in order to recover damages for excess economic loss. Therefore, if a person sustains work loss in excess of the monthly no-fault work loss benefits or sustains a loss of income beyond the three year no-fault work loss benefit period, a liability claim can be pursued regardless of whether the injury constitutes a threshold injury.
Since no-fault PIP benefits often do not fully compensate auto accident victims for all of the economic damages they sustain, the liability claim is oftentimes the only way a victim can recieve all of the economic damages they have suffered. If a person sustains a serious injury in a motor vehicle accident caused by the fault of another driver, the injured person should contact an attorney about pursuing a lawsuit for excess economic loss and non-economic losses and damages.
February 19, 2004 in Third Party Rights | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834208fd253ef00d8345be84669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Third-Party Rights:
Comments
Twichel v MIC Gen Ins Corp
Michigan Supreme Court
No 121822 (Mich Sup Ct March 9, 2004)
Plaintiff’s decedent was the "owner" of a vehicle for the purposes of the no-fault act because he took possession with the intent to use the truck for more than 30 days. This finding of ownership was not affected by decedent’s payment of only a portion of the purchase price, his lack of title, or his lack of actual use of the truck for over 30 days. As an owner, decedent was obligated to engage insurance. Decedent’s failure to insure the truck voided any coverage he might have had under his grandfather’s no-fault policy. Additionally, decedent was not protected by his grandfather’s uninsured motorist coverage because he was killed while occupying a vehicle he owned that was not covered by an uninsured policy. The uninsured policy did not define owner, but its common meaning involves possession, control, and dominion. Decedent owned the vehicle because he had possession, control, and dominion over it.
Posted by: Recent No-Fault 'Owner' Case | Mar 17, 2004 10:29:36 AM
Insurer Wasn’t Required To Defend Insured In Death Case
An employer’s insurance carrier was not required to defend the employer in a wrongful death suit filed by the estates of two employees who were killed by a malfunctioning press, the Michigan Court of Appeals has decided.
The insurance carrier argued that the complaint — which alleged that the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur — was not comprehended by the insurance policy.
The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the policy excluded acts which were either “expected” or “intended.”
“We fail to see how [the employer] could have committed any acts with the belief that plaintiffs were certain to be injured, yet not have expected such injuries to occur. The policy exclusion for ‘bodily injury … either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured’ effectively bars coverage for the underlying claims,” wrote Judge E. Thomas Fitzgerald. “Because there is no possibility of coverage under the policy for either of the actions filed against [the employer], it follows that [the insurance carrier] had no duty to defend those actions.”
General Rule: Intentional Acts Aren't Covereged By Insurance ...
Posted by: Intentional Acts Aren't Covereged By Insurance | Apr 8, 2004 12:06:49 PM
Goins v. Clifton: In an unpulbished Michigan Court Of Appeals decision, teh court ruled: Where plaintiff's leg was fractured in a rollover accident, the trial court's denial of a defense motion for summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment is reversed because the court did not explain how the injury affected plaintiff's ability to lead a normal life.
"While the trial court determined as a matter of law that plaintiff’s fractured leg
created an impairment of a body function, it failed to establish how that impairment affected
plaintiff’s ability to lead a normal life, pursuant to MCL 500.3135.
MCL 500.3135(1) states:
“A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious
impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.”
MCL 500.3135(7) further states that:
“As used in this section, ‘serious impairment of body function’ means an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s ability to lead a normal life.”
In making a determination of whether an impairment of a body function is serious and
interferes with a person’s ability to lead a normal life, courts should consider factors such as the extent of the injury, treatment required, duration of the disability, the extent of the residual impairment, and the prognosis for eventual recovery. Kern, supra, at 341. In assessing the extent of the injury, a court may compare the plaintiff’s lifestyle before and after the injury. May v Sommerfield (After Remand), 240 Mich App 504, 506; 617 NW2d 920 (2000)....When denying the motion for summary disposition in this case, the trial court failed to set forth the manner in which the left leg injury plaintiff sustained affected her ability to lead a normal life. As such, the serious impairment threshold was not met as a matter of law and defendant should have been granted her motion for summary disposition.
Posted by: Plaintiff's ability to lead normal life | Apr 13, 2004 9:48:21 AM
Michigan Court Of Appeals - Unpublished
No-Fault - Serious Impairment Claim - Subjective Complaints
Where plaintiff claimed his car accident injuries entitled him to noneconomic damages under the no-fault act, his case was properly dismissed. Plaintiff's claim was based primarily on subjective complaints of discomfort and muscle spasms. An MRI yielded normal results. Further, plaintiff traveled extensively after the accident, participated in three businesses and was involved with several clubs.
- Rida v. Young. (Lawyers Weekly No. 08-52595 - 2 pages).
Posted by: Impairment Claim - Subjective Complaints | Jun 24, 2004 9:02:14 AM
Mann v St Clair County Rd Comm'n
Michigan Supreme Court
No 122845 (Mich Sup Ct June 30, 2004)
The 5 percent comparative negligence cap, MCL 257.710e(6), for a motor vehicle passenger’s failure to wear a seat belt applies only to third-party actions under the no-fault act. Therefore, the cap does not limit a plaintiff’s comparative negligence in a suit arising under the highway exception to governmental immunity.
Click Here To View Case
Posted by: 5 Percent Comparative Negligence Cap | Jul 7, 2004 10:47:38 AM
Luther v. Morris: Michigan Court Of Appeals [Unpublished]
Where plaintiff's elbow on her dominant arm was injured in a car accident and use of her other arm was severely restricted by a previous stroke, and these circumstances prevented her from working and left her totally dependent on her sister's care, albeit for a relatively short time after the accident, plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. "We read Kreiner v. Fischer, 471 Mich. 109 (2004), as indicating that an impairment of short duration may constitute a serious impairment of body function if the effect on a plaintiff's life is extensive and if the impairment has a considerable impact on the plaintiff's life as compared to his or her life before the accident."
No-Fault - Serious Impairment - Duration Of Impairment
Posted by: Krainer Victory | Jan 20, 2005 11:45:00 AM
You should always purchase both uninsured and underinsured coverage with your auto policy. State Farm and AAA do not sell UNDERinsured coverage. You must switch to another carrier to be fully covered. The coverage limits of Underinsured Motorist Coverage should equal the limits you carry for Bodily Injury coverage
Posted by: UNDERinsured motorist coverage | Mar 13, 2005 9:58:52 AM
