Michigan House Bill HB5057

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/27/23
• Refer: 9/27/23
• Report Pass: 10/12/23

Caption

Insurance: no-fault; option to exclude work loss benefits; expand. Amends sec. 3107 of 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.3107).

Impact

The impact of HB 5057 could significantly alter the landscape of personal protection insurance in Michigan. By giving specific demographics the option to waive work loss benefits, the legislation could encourage a broader acceptance of such policies among elderly and disabled individuals. Proponents of the bill may argue that this flexibility allows for personalized insurance solutions while potentially lowering premiums for those who feel they do not need coverage for work loss due to their circumstances.

Voting

During its initial voting phase, HB 5057 saw unanimous support with 16 votes in favor and none opposed, suggesting a strong bipartisan agreement on the bill's core intent. However, as the bill progresses, further discussions are expected, especially as stakeholders assess its long-term effects on injured parties and Michigan's insurance framework.

Summary

House Bill 5057 proposes amendments to the Insurance Code of 1956, specifically targeting the regulation of personal protection insurance benefits. The bill seeks to expand the current options available for individuals, particularly permitting those aged 60 and over or individuals deemed permanently and totally disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, to waive their entitlement to work loss benefits. This waiver would enable insurers to offer a reduced premium rate for such individuals, reflecting a possible shift in cost management within the insurance sector.

Contention

Notably, the bill has generated discussions surrounding its potential consequences on the safety net established for injured individuals. Opponents may contend that allowing waivers for essential benefits could inadvertently threaten the economic stability of vulnerable groups if they choose to opt-out without fully understanding the ramifications. Moreover, the exclusion of coverage for medical marihuana and expenses associated with it could also be a contentious aspect, reflecting ongoing debates over the inclusion of alternative medical treatments in standard insurance policies.