Born: 1950
Education: Wayne State University Law School (1975); University of Michigan (1972)
Admitted to Bar: 1975
Experience: Partner, Sinas, Dramis, Brake, Broughton & McIntyre, P.C.
Legal Affiliations: Past president, Michigan Trial Lawyers Association; past president, State Bar Negligence Law Section; ICLE author and speaker; adjunct faculty, Michigan State University Detroit College of Law.
While Lansing attorney George T. Sinas was in law school, his career path was being formulated by the Michigan Legislature's 1973 passage of sweeping automobile no-fault legislation.
Determining the ins and outs of the legislation, which eliminated civil tort liability for automobile accidents, became Sinas' mission.
After the Michigan Supreme Court declared the No-Fault Act constitutional in Shavers v. Attorney General, Sinas took the first step to becoming one of Michigan's premier experts in no-fault law when he wrote, "Michigan No-Fault Automobile Insurance Decisions," commonly known as the "Red Book."
Twenty-five years later, the book, which originally contained a half-dozen cases, now covers more than 2,200 cases and spans three volumes.
In this, the "Red Book's" silver anniversary, Sinas reflects on where no-fault coverage is today.
Q. You've seen no-fault law from its beginnings through its present state. What changes have you seen?
A. The "Red Book" began as no-fault was born and has taken us through its first quarter century. The volume of case law is just incredible. At one time, no-fault was the fastest growing area of jurisprudence — cases were coming down so fast it was hard to stay on top of it.
When no-fault was passed, it was premised on the promise that people would get unlimited lifetime medical expenses pursuant to a fee for services system that simply required proof that the expense was reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount. In exchange for that benefit, people gave up the right to sue for non-economic loss in cases involving clearly minor injuries.
But the no-fault system has gotten out of balance because the restrictions on the right to pursue liability have increased dramatically via a much more restricted definition of serious impairment of bodily function. Fewer and fewer significantly injured people are being given access to the courthouse to make liability claims for non-economic loss.
While injured people are being disenfranchised from non-economic loss compensation, the insurance industry and, to some extent, the courts, are putting restrictions on the first-party benefits. The teeter-totter is way out of whack. If you are going to restrict compensation for non-economic loss in tort cases you ought to be given more first-party benefits.
What is happening is that third-party as well as first-party compensation is being limited — the basic promise is being broken. I see more and more restrictions on the right of significantly injured people to obtain compensation from the wrong-doer while, at the same time, the insurance industry continues to assert great pressure legislatively and in the appellate courts to put restrictions on first-party benefits, primarily in the form of managed care modalities.
If we had known in 1972 what we know now, the no-fault bill would not have passed. People would have thought it unfair. It's unfair to tell someone who has been injured by a drunk driver he hurt you, but he didn't hurt you bad enough, so he gets off with no accountability. That's fundamentally wrong and that's what's happening today with many of the Court of Appeals cases. There are examples of people with fractures, people who have undergone surgery, people who have been out of work for a significant period of time being told by Court of Appeals judges and trial judges that they haven't been hurt bad enough while the wrong-doer walks away scot-free in terms of civil liability. That's what I mean when I say the system has to remain balanced.
I don't think people quarrel with the notion that elimination of suit for a clearly frivolous injury — the little rear-ender that results in a few days of aches and pains — is not too big a price to pay to for this rich and generous system. We had people saying they weren't willing to pay that price 25 years ago but right now I think you'd have people saying that's reasonable. It's reasonable to disenfranchise the clearly frivolous cases.
But it is a very sick system that tells those folks their suffering and their damage is not worth the law's attention.
Q. What, if anything, is happening to put this back in balance? Is there any movement afoot?
A. There is a growing awareness in the medical world and the consumer world that providers, patients and consumer groups need to join hands and come forward and make their voices heard. Many groups have recently done so in the formation of the Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN).
The legislature and the courts need to know there is another side to the story that the insurance industry tries to sell.
People are coming together like never before. I think there is a possibility you'll see some affirmative legislation offered by consumer groups to try to put no fault back in balance.
Q. What is the state of the law regarding "serious impairment of bodily function?"
A. The Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal in Kreiner v. Fischer and joined it with Stroub v. Collett. The Supreme Court will express some type of view regarding at least one aspect of the threshold. Beyond that, it's difficult to say where we're headed.
There's also a significant case that the Court of Appeals will hear oral argument on in January — Michigan Chiropractic Council v. Commissioner of Ins.
Q. Is there any insurance company that you see sued more often than others? Is there a company that is harder to deal with than others?
A. I don't think any one insurance company is sued more than others. If you counted up the number of times each company has been sued there would probably be a relationship to the percentage of the market they write.
Insurance companies are like people in that they have personalities — and their personalities change. When I started practicing law in the 1970s, AAA was notoriously difficult to deal with. They denied almost every claim in accordance to claims philosophy back then.
As claims people come and go, claim handling changes. You can't say one insurance company is the most difficult to deal with. It's a cyclical thing that depends upon the particular claim-handling procedures and policies they are pursuing at any one time.
At the present time, there are certain companies that seem to be more difficult to deal with than others, but that could change next year.
Q. You've probably had to turn clients away. How do you determine what clients you'll take and, if you decide to turn someone away, how do you go about doing that?
A. It's very difficult. The hardest client to turn away is the one who is clearly the victim of another driver's negligence and has clearly been injured. You have to say to that person, "The guy was drunk, he ran a red light, he hurt you, but he didn't hurt you bad enough."
That's the toughest message to send. You're saying the insistence American law has on personal accountability doesn't mean a thing — it only means something sometimes. That is a painful and philosophically lousy message to send. Our parents tell us we are accountable for what we do and if we cause damage we are accountable. Yet in this area of law, we are moving toward a state where personal accountability and the safe operation of a motor vehicle is less and less important as that threshold goes higher and higher.
In those turn-down situations, potential clients look at you like you're crazy and ask, "This is the law?" You answer, "Yes, this is the law."
And that leads to the biggest myth of tort reform — that there's frivolous lawsuits making lawyers rich. You can't get rich off a frivolous lawsuit. If you have a steady diet of frivolous lawsuits, I guarantee you will go broke. This notion that frivolous lawsuits are running rampant — that there's an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits, that lawyers are making money on frivolous lawsuits — is ridiculous.
Subscribers Only
