Michigan Court of Appeals Case Shafted Motorcyclist

Decision: Insurance does not have to pay $100k in medical bills

As Seen in Thunder Road Magazine

 

 

It really bothers me to see a motorcyclist get shafted by the law, so this month I wanted to talk about a recent case decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals that involved a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist, whom I did not represent, lost the case, which is unpublished, and I think there are some important lessons to be learned from his situation.

 

In late July, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided the case of Detroit Medical Center (DMC) versus Progressive Michigan Insurance Company ("Progressive"). The case stated that the motorcyclist was traveling upward of 100 mph on a desolate and very dark side street that crossed Jefferson Road. The motorcyclist saw motor vehicle headlights Jefferson Road and hit the brakes hard to avoid colliding with the vehicle. The aggressive braking caused the motorcycle to fishtail, and the rider lost control and dumped the bike. The motorcycle never came in contact with the motor vehicle. The motorcyclist was treated for extensive injuries at DMC, and incurred over $100,000 worth of medical bills. As they can do in these situations, the DMC brought a case directly against the appropriate auto insurance provider, in this case Progressive, claiming that the motorcyclist was entitled to no-fault benefits.

 

It's important to understand how no-fault benefits work for motorcyclists. A motorcycle is not included in the definition of a "motor vehicle" under Michigan's no-fault law. If you own a bike, you must have insurance on it, otherwise you cannot make a claim for no-fault benefits. These benefits can include lifetime coverage of medical bills, wage loss, money for household help, medical mileage, and attendant care. In order for a motorcyclist to qualify for no-fault benefits under the law, a "motor vehicle" (car, truck, van, tractor trailer, etc.) must be involved in the crash. If the motorcyclist hits a pothole, loose gravel, a dog, or another motorcycle, no-fault benefits will not be paid.

 

In this particular case, the Court of Appeals decided that the motorcyclist was not entitled to the medical bills paid because the motor vehicle wasn't "involved enough". In its ruling, the Court stated that there has to be a connection between the motorcycle and the other vehicle that is more than just incidental. In other words, there must be a causal nexus established between the accident and the motor vehicle. It went on to state that the motor vehicle to be involved in the accident, must be actively, as opposed to passively, contribute to the accident and have more than a random association with the accident scene. For a motor vehicle to be causally connected to the motorcyclist's injuries, their injuries must originate from the use of the vehicle.

 

This Court of Appeals panel believed that the motorcyclist was startled, and overreacted when he saw the headlights on Jefferson Road. I was not directly involved with this case and don't have any inside information on the proceedings; my comments reflect my personal opinion, which is that this aspect of the decision is difficult for me to accept. The panel wanted evidence that the evasive action taken by the motorcyclist was necessary to avoid the motor vehicle, yet they did not accept the rider's opinion that a crash couldn't be avoided unless he hit the brakes. Often in these cases, there are no other witnesses to the crash besides the two drivers, and really the only person who can say for sure that the motorcyclist felt that a crash was imminent is the rider himself. The bottom line is, the Court of Appeals panel found that there was no objective need for the motorcyclist to take evasive action, and therefore the motor vehicle was not sufficiently involved in the crash to entitle the motorcyclist to no-fault benefits. The DMC did not get its medical bills paid by the auto insurance company, leaving the motorcyclists on the hook for the entire cost of his treatment.

 

This, and other decisions by appellate courts (Court of Appeals, Michigan Supreme Court, etc.) is relevant because of how laws are made. When legislature passes a bill, it becomes a law "on the books", and we must follow it. A judge deciding a case filed in a lower court, like a District Court that hears traffic tickets and small criminal matters, or a Circuit Court that hears divorces or civil cases over $25,000, looks to the written law to decide the legal issues in the case before them. However, published laws as written do not cover every single situation that might occur. So, if the written law does not plainly state what to do given the factual situation the judge has before them, the judge looks at the appellate courts decisions for similar factual cases with the same legal issues.

 

With the Michigan Court of Appeals, a case can be published or unpublished. A published case is authoritative; it's what we call "good law", and we must follow it as written, and it is used to decide future cases. If it is unpublished, then it is not authoritative;  the decision was unique to the case, and is not the law that other judges must follow given similar facts. That said, even if a ruling is not authoritative, among the legal community we would say that it is instructional, and could give other judges an idea of how to rule on similar cases if there is not a published case on point.  At the end of the day, whether this ruling is published or unpublished, the motorcyclist in this case is still stuck with a massive medical bill.

 

 

There are several lessons to be learned here. First, if you have a bike, insure it. We all like to think that nothing bad will happen to us, but it's not worth the risk. Next, if you crash and a motor vehicle was involved, it is important to establish evidence that shows how involved the motor vehicle was. As we saw with this case, your opinion may not be enough to establish the motor vehicle's involvement in Court. Finally, I always recommend that motorcyclists have health insurance as well. That way your medical bills are covered even if you are not entitled to no-fault benefits after a crash.