Attorney Find Blog

Recently, we talked about the Florida legislature’s issues with the state’s personal injury protection law, which will sundown in October. While the debate over whether or not personal injury protection should be required rages in Florida, Michigan lawmarkers are debating another facet of n0-fault insurance: the prohibition on lawsuits for all but the most serious of injuries.

In Michigan, personal injury protection covers not only medical bills but up to three years of lost wages. But in order for a car accident victim to sue for additional damages such as pain and suffering, the injury must impair the victim’s “general ability to lead his or her normal life”. A restrictive State Supreme Court ruling in 2004 determined that the injury must affect “the course and trajectory” of one’s general life. According to a representative of the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault, the State Court of Appeals has ruled against injured parties and in favor of the insurance company in 140 of 165 cases heard since that ruling.

Now, some lawmakers are attempting to reverse the impact of that decision, but Michigagn Republicans and automobile insurance companies say that reform would bring a flood of lawsuits.

Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected a tobacco industry claim that the statute of limitations in tobacco limitations cases should start running when the plaintiff first becomes aware of the addiction. The argument wasn’t unfounded–it has roots in a 2002 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that has stopped other similar cases over the past several years.

The California Supreme Court ruling opens the door for those and similar cases to go forward. The plaintiffs’ attorneys successfully argued that a plaintiff who discovered him or herself addicted to tobacco couldn’t reasonably be expected to guess the he or she might one day develop cancer or emphysema and file suit. In fact, such claims would likely be dismissed as frivolous, since evidence of any damages would be lacking.

The California Supreme Court ruling provides a green light for stalled tobacco litigation in California.