Under the Michigan No-Fault Insurance laws, a person who suffers a serious injury in a motor vehicle accident can often make claims with the insurance company to have their residence or home modified to accomodate their special needs resulting from the accident.  This is a tremendous benefit that every injury victim should know about and it is especially beneficial to patients with life-changing injuries, like spinal cord injuries. 

Attorney Daniel L Buckfire at my office authored “The Ultimate Michigan Car Accident Handbook” which explains these benefits, and other no-fault insurance benefits, to injury victims in plain English.  This includes a section on Home Modifications and Accomodations, which I have pasted below.  For a free copy of the book itself, simply click  here to request your copy.  Also feel free to call anytime with questions about your situation. 

Type of Benefit

Home Modifications and Accommodations 

What is it for? 

Home modification benefits are paid when the injured person cannot comfortably live in his or her current home or apartment because of physical limitations caused by injuries from the accident.  The insurance company is required to pay for remodeling for items such as handicapped ramps, additional rooms, wider doorways, and even bathrooms and showers to make it easier for an injured person to live in the home.

How much can I get for home modifications? 

The dollar amount paid for these services depends on the type of disability and the special needs of the injured person.  Typically, an architect or contractor works alongside the medical provider to design the most appropriate changes for the home.  There is no limit on the amount as long as it is reasonable and necessary.

What if I rent an apartment or live with a family member or friend? 

You are still entitled to have this remodeling done if you live in an apartment or live with someone else.  If you live in an apartment, the insurance company may be required to remodel your apartment or may have to find a better place for you to live that is equipped with accommodations to meet your needs.  The insurance company may be required to pay for this residence in full or in part.

How do I file my claim? 

The claim must be submitted to the insurance adjuster assigned to your claim. 

What type of documentation do I need? 

You need a prescription from your doctor or an occupational therapist for these modifications and a reasonable plan for the remodeling.   You may need to enter into a contract with a construction company for the needed remodeling.

How much time do I have to file my claim? 

You should submit your claim these expenses once it has been determined by a doctor that it is necessary and you have a contract for the necessary remodeling work.

What do I do if the insurance company refuses to pay these benefits?

If your insurance company refuses to pay these benefits, your only recourse is to file a lawsuit against the company that demands payment for the expenses.

How much time do I have to file my lawsuit? 

If the claims are presented within one year but are not paid by the insurance company within one year of the date of expense or claim, it will be necessary to start a lawsuit within that one year period in order to protect your claim.  If you choose to begin a lawsuit against your insurance company for No-Fault benefits, you must file a lawsuit within ONE YEAR of the date on which the last unpaid No-Fault benefit was incurred.

If you fail to file your lawsuit within this one year period, you will lose the right to have the benefit or expense paid.

As you are approaching the one year anniversary of your car accident, and there are any outstanding claims that have not been paid by the insurance company, we recommend that you file a lawsuit prior to the one year anniversary of the accident.

Now that the weather has turned, its time to pull the bicycles out of the garage, inflate the tires, and go for a leisurely ride.  While bike riding is great fun and exercise, it can also be dangerous, even in your own neighborhood.  Drivers frequently seem to ignore the rights of bicyclists and causing serious accidents, many times because they are talking on their cell phone or simply not paying attention.  The injuries from bike accidents are often very serious and even deadly.

My firm handles a number of Michigan bicycle accident cases every year.  In most cases, the biker was just enjoying the weather when a careless driver ran him down.  Under Michigan law, the injured biker has two possible cases.  The first case is a no-fault insurance case and can file this type of claim even if he did not have an insurance policy or if the victim was a child, because the claim can be made against a number of other insurance policies.  The other type of claim is for the personal injuries caused by the negligent driver.  These include claims for pain and suffering, scars, disability, and loss of earnings. 

To avoid these accident and to minimize injuries, stay off the main roads, wear an approved helmet and refelective clothing, and follow the rules of the road.  Hopefully, you’ll have a great summer on two wheels.

       Under the Michigan No-Fault, law a person cannot sue a negligent driver for non-economic damages (pain and suffering etc.) unless his or her injury results in: (1) serious impairment of body function; (2) death; or (3) permanent serious disfigurement. MCL 500.3135.   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 “serious impairment” element in this statute 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. 

            However, in Donovan v. Metro Plant Service, Inc., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided March 6, 2008 [Docket No. 275373], the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s dismissal of  an injured person’s case involving a serious shoulder injury sustained in an auto accident.  The Court stated that Mr. Donovan’s injuries affected  his “ability to lead his normal life”  which is part of the test under the “serious impairment of body function” threshold.  In making this determination, the Court applied the standards set forth in Kreiner, supra and cleared up many of the inconsistencies in which Kreiner, supra has been applied. 

      In that case, Mr. Donovan required arthroscopic surgery after he injured his shoulder in an auto accident. After the surgery he underwent four weeks of physical therapy. In the one- to two-month period immediately after the surgery, he could not, work, drive, groom and dress himself, perform chores around the house and he was unable to raise his left arm more than six inches away from his thigh. He was generally unable to engage in normal daily activities or his usual routine. Further, he had to sleep in a reclining chair because he could not sleep laying flat. Also, he was also forced to rely on his fiancée, father, and friends to assist him with basic tasks associated with daily living, including the simple task of buttoning his clothes.             

      The Court held that these facts were sufficient enough to show that the impairment affected his “general ability to lead his normal life.”  Notably, the Court held that the No-Fault statute “has no express, and we believe no implicit, time component.”  This decision is important because it reaffirms that a period of impairment of short duration can satisfy the serious impairment test, if the impairment is extensive with respect to the limits it places on an injured persons life.   In this regard the Court stated that “the course or trajectory of a person’s life can be affected, if even momentarily, by a devastating, yet short-lived impairment…”       

This well written decision is a much needed victory for persons injured in auto accidents in Michigan, because it clarifies prior misinterpretations and misapplications of the No-Fault Statute and the Kreiner, supra. decision.

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.