Michigan's no fault rule debate

doesn't take much for Richard Kreiner to get a painful reminder of how life has changed since the automobile accident a decade ago.

Too much time working on a ladder does it. So does trying to pick up a heavy load. For the 43-year-old self-employed carpenter from Lapeer County, hours on the job can trigger throbbing in his back, hips and legs.

Kreiner, who was hurt in a 1997 crash caused by another driver, has become the poster boy in a legislative showdown between the state's insurance industry and a coalition of trial lawyers, medical associations and two dozen other groups. They're battling over a 2004 Michigan Supreme Court ruling that made it harder for motorists to successfully sue the drivers who caused their injuries.

That ruling -- which bears Kreiner's name -- basically holds that only those who have suffered damage that keeps them from generally living their lives as before can win.

Since that decision, according to the coalition of advocacy groups, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled against injured motorists in 85% of the cases.

"I've really felt bitter about this over the years," Kreiner said last week. "Unless your doctor says you're totally disabled, they'll throw out your case."

Today, the state House Judiciary Committee is to begin hearings in Lansing on a bill to undo the Kreiner decision, signaling the opening round in a major lobbying campaign by the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault to amend state law and neutralize several controversial no-fault rulings by the Michigan Supreme Court's Republican-nominated majority.

The coalition includes the Michigan Health & Hospital Association and the Michigan Consumer Federation.

With Democrats regaining control in the House in the last election, the coalition says the time is ripe for such a change. But the insurance industry disagrees, saying the Kreiner decision has helped stabilize the insurance market by weeding out potentially frivolous suits and keeping costs down for Michigan drivers.

"We don't think Kreiner is extreme," said Peter Kuhnmuench, executive director of the Insurance Institute of Michigan, a Lansing trade group whose members are to testify at today's hearing.

If the Kreiner decision is somehow overturned, he warned, Michigan motorists could be hit with double-digit premium increases.

George Sinas, the coalition's lawyer and a no-fault insurance specialist, said it's shameful for the state to support a policy under which people with significant injuries can't recover damages.

"Kreiner is terrible public policy and extremely unjust to innocent accident victims," he said.
Proof of injury made harder

Michigan's no-fault system was created in 1973 to reduce accident suits. A model program nationally, it provided victims unlimited medical coverage, three years of wage-loss benefits and other support.

It was intended to keep premiums down, and to eliminate delays in payments by allowing drivers to collect from their own insurance companies, regardless of fault.

In exchange for providing drivers with the most generous medical benefits of any of the 12 states offering no-fault, Michigan's Legislature restricted motorists' ability to sue other drivers for diminished quality of life -- including pain and suffering, loss of social enjoyment and mental anguish -- unless the crash killed, seriously disfigured or seriously impaired a motorist.

Then in 2004 came the Kreiner decision, in which the state Supreme Court interpreted a 1995 amendment to the no-fault law by holding that a claimant must prove that his or her life is significantly altered -- be unable to generally live as before the accident -- to succeed.
Critics including Sinas said none of the requirements or key language used by the high court were part of the 1995 amendment to the law. The coalition also says that the state Court of Appeals has invoked Kreiner to dismiss at least 140 of 165 lawsuits bas