As with anything in life, consider the source...Again, if the lack of unlimited PIP coverage were such a danger to residents of this state then wouldn't it be fairly universally true in every state? Exactly... I doubt you will see any other debates being waged in other states over this matter. Call your insurance, save your money. We have Progressive and they have always been the most affordable. Now with the new policy after July 1 we are saving $800 per year. Educate yourself and don't listen to someone who has a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

AMEN! I also saved about $800/year. That amount seems to be typical.

Most people are not knowledgeable enough about insurance coverage and auto insurance laws to accurately analyze their risks. This is also true regarding decisions about how much Personal Injury Protection to purchase under Michigan's new statutes or even what their liability or uninsured/under insurance motorist limits should be.

One example of how complex the law can be has to do with motorcyclists. Few consumers recognize where a motorcyclist collects coverage under Personal Insurance Protection. It is never the motorcyclist’s own policy. They can only collect under the policy of an automobile owner involved in an accident. So what happens when an automobile owner selects less than unlimited PIP or even opts out and carries no PIP coverage and is involved in an accident with a motorcyclist? The motorcyclist may sue for any medical expenses not covered by the automobile owner’s policy, including those that exceed the amount of coverage purchased by the automobile owner. On the other hand, if the automobile owner maintains unlimited PIP, the motorcyclist will not have any out of pocket medical expenses to pursue because the policy will pay the motorcyclist's medical expenses on an unlimited lifetime basis. The risk would then be back to what it was under the law since 1973...suits for pain and suffering exceeding a fairly high threshold.

I purchase unlimited lifetime PIP because I understand the risks in the new law. It only costs me $16 per month more for each car to carry Unlimited PIP versus opting out of PIP altogether. (Less than $200 per car each year, not $1,200 per car each year). I see the value in the protection from lawsuits and in the improved care my family will receive if they are seriously injured in an automobile accident.

Consumers should also understand that there are material differences between what health insurance covers, including Medicare and Medicaid vs. Personal Injury Protection under an auto insurance policy. For those who have suffered spinal cord or closed head injuries (which could happen to any of us) they will tell you how our unlimited PIP system saved them from bankruptcy and afforded a substantially improved quality of life. Such protections include custodial care, home and vehicle modification assistance, and more. Most consumers have no idea what they are giving up.

Experts agree that the protection afforded under our prior law was the best system in the country. From its inception it was affordable and far more efficient overall, as we traded legal expense for improved policyholder coverage. The protection we enjoyed could have been preserved by simply addressing the cost drivers, many of which were opportunistic people and businesses which broke the back of our system by abuse, fraud and or overcharging. That is another discussion. Overall the new system is not nearly as good as it should have been for consumers. It is, however, the reform that the legislature could pass given all of the constituents that weighed in. There is a positive outcome of the reform, in that those who least can afford auto insurance now have options to give up protection in return for a premium reduction. It isn’t without taking risk, but if one is in a season of life that is financially distressed, perhaps it doesn't feel like there is much to lose by taking more risk.

Hard to believe you are getting the unlimited PIP for $16/month. For me it was $70/month. And as I understand it, if the motorcyclist sued me, my bodily injury protection insurance would cover that.

No one should be "steering" people in making their PIP option choice. However, it should be understood that with any PIP option choice other than Unlimited, you sacrifice and/or limit attendant care coverage. "Attendant care means services to assist an injured person with tasks they would normally do for themselves (e.g., eating,
bathing, dressing, grooming, and medication administration). It may also involve supervision or other types of support."

Spoken like an insurance salesman.
Got any advice on timeshares?

Because Crain’s provided this platform to Mr. Cornack it would be nice to see the newspaper fact check his statements. If I have quality, employer-provided health insurance is the following statement true: “...lifetime benefits are the only way to ensure that you and your family will be protected if you get into an accident.”

And what about this one: “ Mayor Duggan has been encouraging residents to get capped plans, which won't save them much money and will put them in enormous financial danger should they get into an accident.“

My wife and I live in Detroit and after adjusting our car insurance we are saving more than $2,400 per year on two vehicles. My analysis didn’t reveal any additional financial risk for us.

Talk about bad advice . . . the author is guilty. I have two questions: Why does my medical coverage for a car accident need to be any different than medical coverage from an accident or illness not related to a car accident? Secondly, there is all of this talk about the importance of unlimited lifetime coverage. Well, I'm retired and my Medicare/Medicare Supplement is unlimited lifetime coverage. And if you have traditional medical coverage, it is very likely uncapped (I believe the affordable care act removed all lifetime limits). Furthermore, if our insurance was so darned important, why is that we were the only state in the U.S. to have such a system? If not having the unlimited lifetime PIP was so devastating to so many, isn't it amazing that not one of the other 49 states chose to copy us.

Let's not forget that our insurance has been so expensive that a lot of drivers (particularly in Detroit and other less affluent areas) have been driving around with NO car insurance at all. Isn't something better than nothing?

The fact of the matter is that we have paid twice for health insurance under the premise that health insurance for a car accident needed to be different than health insurance for everything else. Hooray for Mike Duggan for putting on his presentation that educated so many of us. He is a champion of the people!