The Republican-led Senate has passed legislation that would alter the laws in the state quite dramatically.
After having made a series of adjustments in the last moment, the Republican-led Michigan Senate has made some changes to the no-fault auto insurance law in the state which has caused massive controversy over the last few years.
The final vote on Senate Bill 248 that aimed to make these changes to the current system was 21 to 17.
The changes to the laws surrounding the no-fault auto insurance system have arrived following a rapid substitution and adoption by the Senate Insurance Committee of a version of the bill. This, regardless of the objections from Democrats, who stated that they had not been provided adequate time to examine and review the newly implemented language in the bill.
At the moment, Michigan drivers are required to take part in no-fault auto insurance coverage.
This means that when a crash causes a serious injury to someone who was involved, any lifetime medical expenses that exceed the initial $530,000 are then covered by the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA). That association reimburses the car insurance company of the individual facing the medical costs. In order to be able to cover those costs, the MCCA currently collects a fee of $186 per vehicle.
_________________________Random Quotes to Remember ~ "Don't be distracted by criticism. Remember--the only taste of success some people get is to take a bite out of you." -- Zig Ziglar
Michigan lawmakers have been trying to come up with a way to alter the no-fault coverage law over the last number of years, including during the previous session when a high profile drive was made by the former House Speaker, Jase Bolger.
The substitute no-fault auto insurance bill received its approval last Thursday, following the adoption of a number of different amendments that had recently been made and that had considerably altered the legislation from what it had been only the day before. Among the largest changes that were made include the one that stated that instead of linking the reimbursement rates for an individual’s medical care to the rates used for workers’ compensation, they would now be linked to a completely different rate, which would be based on an average that is used among commercial insurers.