On February 19, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a unanimous, published opinion, holding that a child’s injury claim against her insurance comapny is not time barred. In  Klida v. Farm Bureau Ins. et al., ___ Mich App. ____, ___ NW2d___   (2008) the Court held that the Michigan statute which tolls the time limitations period until a minor’s 19th birthday (MCL 600.5851), applies to all civil claims, including claims based on statute, common law, or contract.

 In Klida, supra the plaintiff, Katie Klida, was seriously injured in a Michigan car accident when she was fifteen years old. At that time, she was insured under an insurance  policy with the Defendant Farm Bureau Insurance Co. which provided coverage for underinsured motorist benefits (insurance benefits that cover an injured person when they are injured by someone who’s liability insurance coverage is inadequate to fully compensate the person for his or her injuries).

Shortly after the Katie’s 18th birthday, she brought a lawsuit against Farm Bureau to recover underinsured motorist benefits. Farm Bureau filed a motion to dismiss her case, arguing that her claim was untimely because of a one-year limitations provision in their insurance contract. The trial court held that Katie’s claim was protected by the one-year tolling provision of §5851, and denied Farm Bureau’s motion to dismiss.  Farm Bureau appealed and the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly concluded that Katie’s claim was timely.The Court held that the purpose of statutes tolling the period of limitations for persons to whom a legal disability is attributed “is to allow protected classes of persons an opportunity to be made whole once their disabilities have been removed.”The Court was mindful of the law which holds that contracts should be interpreted according to their plain terms. However, the Court eloquently stated that: 

 “[C]ontracts may also not grant a right and then burden that right with a condition that cannot be met. Minors whose right of action accrues and expires, without legal proceedings, while they are laboring under their disability are permanently precluded, through no fault of their own, from exercising their legal rights under the contract in violation of the clear public policy that such minors are to be protected.”

            The Klida, supra decision is an intellectually honest and cogent opinion that protects the rights of injured children and incapacitated adults, while at the same time adhering to the tenets of statutory interpretation.  The lawyers at Buckfire & Buckfire P.C.  handles Michigan car accident cases involving these types of issues.  Please feel free to contact us to discuss your case.

In recent years, Michigan car accident victims have had their cases dismissed due in large part to the Michigan Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Michigan No-Fault law in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004).  These cases have become known as “Kreiner Casualties” because many people with very serious injuries, (e.g. broken bones requiring surgery), have had their cases dismissed before they even get to a jury. 

In Stevenson v. Allstate, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided February 12, 2008 [Docket No. 275501], the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld yet another dismissal of  an injured person’s case involving serious back injuries sustained as a result of an auto accident.  In that case, the Plaintiff was a sergeant in the United States Air Force.  As a result of the accident she sustained an injury to her lower back, which included a bulging disc in her lumbar spine.  She required several months of injections and therapy. Moreover, for a year and a half following the accident Sergeant Stevenson was unable to meet the Air Force’s physical testing requirements which resulted in her losing  at least $ 78,000 in potential income, a two year delay in a job promotion and the loss of valuable training time. Nonetheless, the Court stated that her injuries did not meet the No-Fault threshold of “serious impairment of body function” because her injuries did not substantially affect her ability to lead her normal life.  In making this determination, the Court applied the standards set forth in Kreiner.   

Unfortunately, Sergeant Stevenson’s case is only one in a long line of cases where injured people with serious injuries have been denied their day in court because of the Kreiner decision.

At one time or another, all of us have purchased a rental car while on vacation, on a business trip, when our car is being serviced, etc..  Some rental car companies charge an extra fee if more than one person will be driving the car, such as a spouse. It is very important that all persons who will be driving the car, be listed on the rental agreement.  This is because in many situations, if the car is involved in an accident, only those persons listed on the contract will be insured. 

A recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision, Robinson v. Titan Ins. Co, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided February 7, 2008 [Docket No. 275360] should act as a warning to all consumers that every person who drives a rental car should be listed on the rental contract. In that case, the Plaintiff went to rent a car. After filling out the paperwork, the rental agent informed him he had to place a deposit on the vehicle with a credit card. The Plaintiff advised that he did not have a credit card, but his friend, who had driven him to the rental facility, did. The Plaintiff’s friend came into the rental facility and, using her credit card, filled out the rental paperwork for the vehicle in her name.  The Plaintiff was not named on the rental contract.  However, the rental company knew that the Plaintiff was going to be the primary driver and handed him the keys.  The Plaintiff thereafter left the rental facility, driving the rental vehicle.  A few days later, the Plaintiff was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist and was seriously injured. Following the accident, the Plaintiff made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits with his insurance company, Titan Insurance Co. Titan denied the claim, arguing that because the Plaintiff was not listed on the rental agreement, he was driving the rental car without the permission of the Rental Company. Thus, Titan argued that he was not covered under the insurance policy.

Fortunately for the Plaintiff,  the trial judge, and the three judges on the Court of Appeals’ panel, looked beyond the rental contract and held that the Plaintiff’s case against Titan should not be dismissed. The Court held that a jury should decide whether the rental company gave the Plaintiff verbal permission to drive the car.

Although the Plaintiff in Robinson, supra will have his day in Court, the result could have been very different depending on the facts. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the jury will agree with Mr. Robinson’s argument and find in his favor. Also, this issue (and the trouble and expense of litigating it) could have been avoided if the Plaintiff had only been listed as a second driver on the rental contract. 

Too often, people are seriously injured in auto accidents in Michigan and are denied certain rights and insurance benefits because of innocent mistakes like the one in Robinson, supra.  Even if there is an extra charge to list a second driver on a rental car contract, it is better to pay the fee than to run the risk of being deemed uninsured and liable for much greater costs in the event an of an accident. This is because, when it comes to reviewing claims, there is no such thing as a harmless “technicality” from an insurance company’s perspective .

In recent years, Michigan car accident victims have had their cases dismissed due in large part to the Michigan Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Michigan No-Fault law in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004).  These cases have become known as “Kreiner Casualties” because many people with very serious injuries, (e.g. broken bones requiring surgery), have had their cases dismissed before they even get to a jury. 

In Baalbaki v. Seelow, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided February 5, 2008 [Docket No. 275629 ], the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld yet another dismissal of  an injured person’s case involving serious back injuries sustained as a result of an auto accident.  In that case, Mr. Baalbaki’s treating doctors diagnosed him as being “partially disabled” and stated that he was “capable of sedentary work only.”  Furthermore, he had to hire sub-contractors to do the same work he used to do in his contracting business, prior to the accident. Moreover, his physicians stated that he required back surgery. In addition, as a result of his injuries he is unable to engage in many of his pre-accident recreational and social activities, such as playing soccer and dancing.  Nonetheless, the Court stated that his injuries did not meet the No-Fault threshold of “serious impairment of body function” because his injuries did not ”affect his ability to lead his normal life.” In making this determination, the Court applied the standards set forth in Kreiner.   

Unfortunately, Mr. Baalbaki’s case is only one in a long line of cases where injured people with serious injuries have been denied their day in court because of the Kreiner decision.

A recent Michigan Court of Appeals case upheld the award of attorney’s fees in a No-Fault Insurance case.  The case was tried before a jury by Daniel Buckfire and the appeal was written by Thomas Economy, both members of the law firm of Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C.In Tillman v. State Farm, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided January 24, 2008 [Docket No.  271702].  Our client suffered a torn rotator cuff and other injuries in a West Bloomfield, Michigan car accident.  Her own insurance company at the time was State Farm Insurance Company.

State Farm refused to pay for medical expenses and loss wages due to the rotator cuff tears in the Plaintiff’s right and left shoulders. State Farm claimed that the injuries were not related to the accident.   Our firm sued State Farm on behalf of Ms. Tillman. At trial, Daniel Buckfire obtained a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $39,552.00 (plus interest and costs) for medical expenses, wage loss benefits an no-fault penalty interest. Following trial, the court awarded the Plaintiff an additional $30,250.00 in penalty attorney fees under § 3148 of the No-Fault Act. State Farm appealed the decision arguing that the denial of Plaintiff’s No-Fault benefits was not unreasonable because there was a “bona fide dispute” as to the nature and extent of the Plaintiff’s injures. Thomas Economy handled the case on appeal for the Plaintiff.            

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court was correct when it awarded the Plaintiff attorney fees under MCL 500.3148 of the Michigan No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.)  The Court disagreed with the Defendant, and found that State Farm did not attempt to resolve the contradictory opinions of Plaintiff’s doctors and the doctors hired by State Farm to examine the Plaintiff. 

In addition, the Court held that it was improper for an insurer to deny coverage when the insurer knew, or should have known, that the opinion of its doctors was based on an inaccurate or incomplete review of plaintiff’s medical records, which were also in the insurer’s possession. Further, the Court noted that State Farm’s adjuster made no effort to reconcile the conflicting medical reports in plaintiff’s records. Moreover, at trial, defendant’s adjuster demonstrated a very limited understanding of plaintiff’s medical condition, including how and where rotator cuff injuries occur or how they are diagnosed. Based on the forgoing, the Court found that State Farm acted unreasonably when it denied Plaintiff’s no-fault benefits.

This case is a perfect example of an insurance company accepting premiums and issuing a policy, but then refusing to pay the benefits that were promised in the policy.  The award of attorney’s fees is necessary in these cases because the insurance companies would have nothing to lose by denying every claim if they could not be penalized for improperly denying claims.