Michigan Motorcyclists are Being Punished for Avoiding Collisions with Motor Vehicles

As Seen in Thunder Road Magazine

 

 

 

  Back in September, I talked about a case involving a motorcyclist who was shafted out of no-fault benefits by the Michigan Court of Appeals, and saddled with over $100K in medical bills. The case, Detroit Medical Center v Progressive Michigan Insurance Company et al (Ct App #304622, July 23, 2013), had to do with a motorcyclist who ended up laying his bike down in the process of avoiding a crash with a motor vehicle. 

A little no-fault background is necessary to understand all this. In order for a motorcyclist to be entitled to no-fault benefits, including all medical bills paid for life, wage loss, household chores, and mileage to and from the doctors, a car, truck, van, SUV, or other “motor vehicle” must be involved in the crash.

The Court stated that “…the motorcyclist’s subjective, erroneous perceived need to react to the motor vehicle,” was the cause of the crash, placing fault on him and denying him no-fault insurance benefits I think he deserved. Basically, the said the motor vehicle needed to be closer and the threat to the motorcyclist more imminent.   I did not represent the motorcyclist and was not involved in this case.

There have been several other cases over the past few years of Michigan courts shafting motorcyclists based on how “involved” (or not) a motor vehicle is in the crash. These court cases are changing the decisions of no-fault adjusters in a way that I think is unfair to motorcyclists. 

Real vs. perceived danger

Is there a difference between real and perceived danger? According to the Michigan Court of Appeals, there is. When the Court of Appeals reversed the decision in Detroit Medical Center v Progressive Michigan Insurance Company et al (Ct App #304622, July 23, 2013), they did so because the panel felt that “…for the motor vehicle to be considered ‘involved’ in the accident, the operation of the motor vehicle must have created an actual need for the motorcyclist to take evasive action.” 

What I can’t figure out is how the Court could determine that the biker was mistaken about the need to take evasive action. No rider is going to dump his bike, risking damage, injury, or death, on a whim. The only time that a motorcyclist would purposefully dump his bike is if he felt that it was the only way to avoid a more serious situation, like a crash with a motor vehicle. 

In Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v Bozung et al (Ct App #304557, June 6, 2013), we see a similar story. Mr. Bozung was riding a motorcycle when he came suddenly upon stopped traffic at an intersection. Bozung dropped his bike rather than collide with the motor vehicle ahead of him, which was insured by Grange Insurance Company of Michigan (Grange). The Trial Court decided in his favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, siding instead with Grange. Conflicting witness accounts, and the inability by the Court to establish whether the motor vehicle was parked as opposed to stopped ultimately shafted Bozung out of no-fault benefits, since they felt they could not say for sure if the motor vehicle was sufficiently “involved” in the crash for him to qualify. 

Braverman v auto Owners (Ct App #306492, August 20, 2013) involved a female rider who was killed when she laid her bike down to avoid colliding with a tractor trailer. The Court used similar logic in this case as in the others I have mentioned, stating that the motor vehicle, in this case the tractor trailer, was not actively involved in the crash. However, Braverman’s case was remanded for trial because the Court was not able to establish conclusively whether the truck was properly lighted; without lights, the Court felt the truck might have actively contributed to the crash. 

An impossible choice

What bothers me most about these decisions and others like them is that if there had been contact between the motorcycle and the motor vehicle, the Courts wouldn’t even look at who was at fault, and they certainly wouldn’t be worried about whether the danger of the situation was “real” or “perceived.” 

It seems to me the way these cases have been decided forces motorcyclists to make an almost impossible choice. They can either choose to dump the bike, avoiding the collision, but likely not avoiding injury, and risk potentially not qualifying for no-fault benefits because there was no contact between them and the motor vehicle. On the other hand, they can allow a collision to happen, risking their lives, and almost guaranteeing more serious injuries, in order to be sure the courts will allow them to collect no-fault benefits. 

If anything, I think the Courts should be encouraging motorcyclists to ride safely and do whatever they can to avoid a collision, but that may no longer be the case. If the Court of Appeals continues this analysis in these cases and deny motorcyclists no-fault benefits for trying to avoid a crash, I think they are adding insult to injury, literally.