LANSING, Mich., June 7, 2022 — State Rep. Julie Brixie (D-Meridian Township), along with the late state Rep. Andrea Schroeder (R-Independence Township), initiated a bipartisan, bicameral effort to convince the appellate courts that Michigan’s new no-fault benefit cuts should not be applied retroactively to victims injured before the new law was passed. Rep. Brixie today issued the below statement following a hearing in the Michigan Court of Appeals in the pending Andary litigation:
“We appreciate the Michigan Court of Appeals granting us amici curiae status in the Andary litigation so that we can make it clear to the Court that at least 73 representatives and senators, the vast majority who voted yes on this new no-fault law, had the understanding that it would NOT be applied retroactively. It was never the intention of these legislators to deprive catastrophically injured victims of life-sustaining medical care available to them under auto insurance policies they purchased before they were injured and long before this new legislation changed the law.
“The amicus brief filed by me and my late colleague, Andrea Schroeder, has an exhibit attached to it that was signed by 73 Republican and Democratic legislators who unequivocally contend that such a fundamentally unfair application of this new law to previously injured patients would be legally wrong for two basic reasons: First, it would be unconstitutional governmental interference with existing contracts in violation of Article I, Section 10, of the Michigan Constitution; and second, it would be an improper deprivation of legally vested contractual rights that cannot be diminished after an insurance policy is purchased and a qualifying injury occurs.
“I am most pleased to announce that since our bipartisan, bicameral amicus brief was filed in the Andary case, at least five Michigan circuit judges have ruled that such an attempt to retroactively reduce the no-fault benefits of previously injured victims would be illegal under Michigan law. We applaud those circuit judges and respectfully urge the Court of Appeals to reach the same conclusion and to ‘just say no to retro.’”