Michigan

Find an Attorney in Michigan

Michigan’s 2019 no-fault reform was one of the largest auto-insurance overhauls in any state in decades — PIP coverage is no longer mandatory unlimited, and the rules for medical billing and rate caps changed everything. Combined with 182-day med-mal notice rules and a strong court system from Detroit to the U.P., local knowledge matters.

Practice areas in Michigan

Common questions about Michigan attorneys

Public Act 21 of 2019 ended Michigan’s mandatory unlimited PIP medical benefits. Drivers now choose from six PIP coverage levels — $50K, $250K, $500K, unlimited, opt-out (for Medicare beneficiaries), or managed-care plan members. The reform also added a fee schedule limiting what providers can charge for crash-related care under MCL 500.3157, capped at percentages of Medicare rates. These changes apply to crashes after July 1, 2020. Choosing PIP coverage well below "unlimited" dramatically changes the value of catastrophic-injury claims.
Three years from the date of injury under MCL 600.5805 for most negligence claims. That’s longer than most states. Claims against government entities require notice within 120 days under MCL 691.1404. Medical malpractice has its own 2-year SOL under MCL 600.5805(8) with a 6-year statute of repose, plus the mandatory 182-day Notice of Intent.
Michigan med-mal plaintiffs must give defendants a written Notice of Intent at least 182 days before filing under MCL 600.2912b — describing the alleged negligence, manner of breach, and damages. After filing, plaintiffs must file an Affidavit of Merit signed by a qualified health professional under MCL 600.2912d, attesting that the standard of care was breached and the breach caused the injury. Missing either is generally fatal to the case.
MCR 8.121 caps med-mal contingency fees at one-third of the net recovery — after costs are deducted from the gross recovery. This is more restrictive than the typical 33%–40% gross contingency in other PI cases. Other Michigan PI cases (non-med-mal) follow the gross-recovery contingency norm. Workers’ comp fees are subject to separate caps under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act.
Yes, but with significant changes. Lugo v. Ameritech (2001) made "open and obvious" a complete bar to many premises-liability claims. In Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil (2023), the Michigan Supreme Court overruled Lugo’s harshest application — the question now goes to the jury under comparative fault rather than as an absolute bar. Open and obvious can still reduce or defeat a claim, but it’s no longer the case-killer it once was.

Ready to find your attorney?

Tell us what happened — we’ll match you with a Michigan attorney who can evaluate your case.

Find my attorney

DearLegal is a legal referral service, not a law firm. We connect individuals with licensed attorneys who can evaluate their case. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice. Results vary based on individual circumstances.