Torts

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

Michigan is a no fault for auto insurance. However some of the torts for the law is so old can it be challenged in court due to age? After an car wreck and I only have insurance I can afford. The accident was not my fault but the car is no longer drivable but it was an dependable care. Under the tort law I only can collect 500 bucks on my loss. Under today's market 500 bucks will not get you anther car but 20 years ago yeah but today no.

Sorry but your grammar is so poor that I'm guessing that you want to try to collect more than the fair market value of your car. You won't get more than the fair market value for the wrecked car.
But "fair market value" is open to interpretation. The other guy's insurer will tell you that they looked your car up in Kelly's Blue Book. You need to do some research on the value of your car. Do on-line searches of Kelly and NADA, get the local "cars for sale" papers.
Show the insurer your results and ask if he wants to go to court over a few pennies.

Good luck

No, Michigan's auto laws apply no fault to property damage not just injury. That means all OP can collect is $500 representing what his deductible would be if he had collision coverage. That is ALL he can get, regardless of fault. And you see it is much more expensive to NOT have proper insurance then to have it. Sorry, but that's the law in your state.

nojames said:

However some of the torts for the law is so old can it be challenged in court due to age?

Under the tort law I only can collect 500 bucks on my loss.

Click to expand...

Cite the case you believe to be controlling here!!

BOR said:

Cite the case you believe to be controlling here!!

Click to expand...

You might want to research Michigan auto insurance laws before you jump in the ring...

Laws can't be challenged just because they are "old", and in this case the law is fairly recent. $500 is not meant to buy you a new car, its meant to reimburse your deductible if you'd had collision. Whether you have collision coverage or not, that's all the other driver is liable for.

ecmst12 said:

Laws can't be challenged just because they are "old", and in this case the law is fairly recent.

Click to expand...

The poster said old, so my thought was it was deseutude law. You say it is recent, he says old?

Yes, laws can be challenged if they are old, it does not mean the challenge will be successful.

If it was a State Supreme Court Ruling, state high courts have overturned themselves before, old and new law, just like the US SC.

The MI no-fault laws were put into place in 1973, and it's statute not case law. Lots of people are trying to change the law but so far, no luck. But in terms of laws, i'd still call that recent.

BOR said:

Yes, laws can be challenged if they are old, it does not mean the challenge will be successful.

Click to expand...

You ignored one very import 4 letter word...

ecmst12 said:

The MI no-fault laws were put into place in 1973, and it's statute not case law. Lots of people are trying to change the law but so far, no luck. But in terms of laws, i'd still call that recent.

Click to expand...

More within 25 years I would say is recent, but that aside, I wanted to make sure the poster was not confusing a very old Appeals court decision with controlling law, as I am sure there is MI SC decisional law on the statute you reference.

The $500 mini-tort is codified in the statute. OP seems to be under the mistaken impression that this number is what it is because in 1973, that was enough to repair or replace a car, when in reality that had nothing to do with it.

and to further refine the dollar amount.

It is limited to up to $500 of out of pocket damages. If the injured party has $250 deductible on a collision coverage policy, the max award possible would be that $250. If they have no collision coverage (such as with the OP) the max award would be $500.

Additionally, the award will be further refined based upon the compared responsibility of the parties of the accident.

I don’t blame you for being upset with Michigan’s “mini tort exception law” which limits third party tort liability to $500 for the loss of your vehicle.

It certainly makes sense to insurer one’s vehicle against losses caused by third parties, but only when it is economically practical.

But here the legislators have decided whether such protection is practical/affordable or not, third parties will no longer be held fully responsible if their negligent conduct happens to destroy your vehicle. And instead you have to assume that responsibility for losses over and above $500.

And they have done so knowing full well that the auto insurance industry makes no collision premium adjustment based on the depreciating value of the insured vehicle. Those rates are the same when it is ready to be junked as when it comes off of the showroom floor. In other words, their exposure diminishes but the premiums don’t.

You ask can the mini tort law be challenged in court? I suppose one could try on constitutional grounds denying equal protection and due process. And perhaps it has already been tried. The law’s been on the books since l973. But all I find is that Section 500.3131(1) that required that collision coverage be kept in place was struck down as unconstitutional. See: Shavers v. Attorney General, 402 Mich. 554, 267 N.W.2d 72 (1978).

Whoa...you don't really think the premium for collision coverage on a brand new vehicle is the same as on a 5 or 10 year old vehicle? Because that is completely false. Collision coverage IS indeed rated based (in part) on the value of the vehicle being insured, because the limit of liability is the ACV of that vehicle. They are not going to charge you the same if your car is worth $5000 vs $50000. And yes, the cost for collision coverage even on the same vehicle should be adjusted at each renewal based on depreciation - though that will only be really noticeable in the beginning when depreciation is greatest. But I bought a new car last year so I have personally seen this in action on my own policy.

there is one great exception to the law but the OP made no reference to the condition that would make it applicable so I suspect it isn't, but:

If the at fault party does not have insurance as required by michigan law, they can be held liable for the damages they cause. It is kind of a slap though because most people that do not have insurance also do not have a pot to piss in so collecting on any judgment due to such a situation would be difficult.