Auto Insurance - Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates, P.C.

Phillip Serafini Testifies Before Senate Committee on Insurance; Featured in Detroit News

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Fri, 19 Sep 2025 21:18:18 GMT

Click this link to view this story on Facebook.

Watch – Attorney Sean Serafini argues before the Michigan Supreme Court regarding auto no-fault and bodily injury insurance coverage for children of divorced parents.

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 21:47:16 GMT

Watch SMDA associate Sean Serafini’s April 9, 2026 argument before the Michigan Supreme Court in Frownfelter v Esurance Property & Casualty Co., et. al.

This case involves a minor child of divorced parents who was involved in an auto accident while she was a passenger in a car driven by her brother. Since her brother lived with her father, and the father owned the car, suit for her injuries had to be filed against her father. Additionally, suit was filed against both her mother’s and father’s respective no-fault insurers after they refused to pay for the child’s medical treatment and essentially just pointed the finger at each other.

There were two primary questions in this case. First, whether the minor child would get no-fault PIP benefits from her mother’s auto insurance or her father’s auto insurance. This question turned on where the child was considered “domiciled”.

The second issue was whether the minor child, who indisputably primarily lived with her mother, would be subject to a coverage reduction provision in her father’s policy of auto insurance, that would leave her father with only $20,000.00 of liability coverage instead of the $250,000.00 of coverage that he had purchased. This determination turned on the definition of “resident” in the policy of insurance that Esurance had written and issued to the father. Accordingly, this finding would also determine the amount the minor child, who suffered serious injuries to her spine, would be able to recover under the insurance policy.

Both the trial court and Court of Appeals held that the minor child’s domicile was with her father, because she had spent the night before the collision at her father’s house. Similarly, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling that the child was a “resident” of her father’s house, such that the coverage reduction provision applied. SMDA appealed this decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, which agreed to hear oral argument on the matter.

On April 9, 2026, Mr. Serafini argued for reversal of the lower court decisions before the Supreme Court. Regarding the first issue, Mr. Serafini argued that although the lower courts had incorrectly applied the existing test used to determine the domicile of a minor child of divorced parents, the Supreme Court should re-write the rule complete, as it had led to numerous conflicting Court of Appeals opinions in the previous few years. Amicus briefing in support of this position was submitted by the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan and the Michigan Association for Justice.

On the second issue, Mr. Serafini argued that Esurance should be forced to provide the $250,000.00 that the child’s father had bought and paid for. Though Esurance failed to define the term “resident” in the policy, Esurance argued that the term should be given the broadest meaning possible, such that the child would be considered a resident of her father’s household, when she did not live there and only visited about one weekend per month.

Mr. Serafini asserted that Esurance, with a team of coverage attorneys and underwriters, had no excuse for not defining the term “resident” if they truly intended to expand the term resident to include a person who spends a couple of nights per month at another family member’s house. However, since Esurance did not define the term, it was ambiguous, or subject to multiple meanings, as a matter of law. Mr. Serafini argued that because the Supreme Court has long held that any ambiguity in an insurance contract must be construed against the drafter of that contract, which was Esurance, and because the Court has repeatedly stated that insurance contracts should be construed in favor of providing coverage, the child’s father should get what he thought he was paying for: $250,000.00 of liability coverage.

The Michigan Supreme Court is expected to issue either a written order or opinion detailing its decision within the next few months.

Click here to read more about Attorney Sean Serafini.

SMDA Partner Phillip Serafini is a 2022 Super Lawyer

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:30:18 GMT

SMDA, PC is proud to announce that one of our founding partners, Phillip Serafini, has once again been selected as a Super Lawyer for Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Attorneys for 2022. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Their patented attorney selection process is peer influenced and research driven, selecting the top 5% of attorneys to the Super Lawyers list each year. This is the third time that Mr. Serafini has received this award in addition to being named as one of Metro Detroits top attorneys by Crains Detroit Business. We feel that these awards reflect the continuing commitment by Phil Serafini as well as the entire staff at SMDA to providing the same quality compassionate representation we have provided to all of our clients over the past 16 years since we opened our doors in 2006. Please feel free to call us for a free consultation if you have questions or concerns about matters within our practice areas:

Court of Appeals Decision Represents Major Victory for Survivors of Catastrophic Crashes and their Families

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Fri, 26 Aug 2022 20:03:43 GMT

SMDA is proud to report that survivors of catastrophic crashes and their loved ones, including a number of my clients at Serafini, Michialowski, Derkacz & Associates, PC, won a major victory in the Michigan Court of Appeals today. The Court issued its long awaited decision in Andary v USAA and held that benefit reductions passed as part of 2019 auto insurance reforms could not be applied retroactively. The decision Represents a Major Victory for Survivors of Catastrophic Crashes and their Families, has binding effect on retroactive application of benefit reductions. The Court ruled 2-1 in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Andary et al. v USAA Casualty Insurance Company et al. The lawsuit was filed in 2019 by guardians of two catastrophically injured auto accident victims — along with the nationally renowned brain injury rehabilitation clinic Eisenhower Center — and names Citizens Insurance Company of America and USAA Casualty Insurance Company as the defendants. The victims, on whose behalf the lawsuit was filed, are Ellen Andary, of East Lansing, and Philip Krueger, of Ann Arbor. The decision will enable thousands of severely injured accident victims to continue receiving medical expense and home care reimbursement at the benefit levels that were legally enforceable under insurance policies that those victims bought and paid for for years before the new law went into effect. The decision will prevent insurance companies from reaping windfall profits by retaining premiums they collected to pay benefits they would no longer be required to provide if the Court had allowed the Insurance Companies to retroactively apply the new law to these claims some of which stem from catastrophic collections that occurred more than thirty years ago. Most significantly, the ruling determined that: The legislation did not contain specific and sufficient language confirming that the legislature intended to apply these changes retroactively. Even if the legislation contained sufficient provisions intending to apply benefit reductions retroactively, such an application would have been an unconstitutional violation of the Contracts Clause of the Michigan Constitution. The trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional equal protection and due process challenges, which alleged that such benefit reductions would violate these constitutional provisions if applied to future accident victims, for the reason that such allegations required factual development in the trial court. Under the Michigan Court Rules, this published opinion has immediate, binding, precedential effect unless it is overturned by the state Supreme Court. Lead counsel for the Plaintiff, George Sinas is to be commended for his work on this case. It is a lifeline for the most vulnerable citizens of our state.

Insurance, Part I

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 05:00:00 GMT

What does your auto insurance policy get you?

Many people buy auto insurance because they have to, not because they want it. However, knowing what you are paying for is important to understanding if what you have actually meets your needs. It is important that you understand that portion of your policy that is no-fault and that portion of your policy that is not.

There are certain benefits you get from your own insurance company, without regard to fault. You are entitled to these benefits even if you only have PLPD or no collision coverage. These benefits are no-fault benefits. If you are injured in the auto accident, you are entitled to have all your medical bills paid. If you are unable to work, you are entitled to have 85% of your wage-loss paid for up to three years.

There are other benefits you are entitled to receive, including but not limited to household chore help, attendant care and medical mileage reimbursement. If you have been injured in an auto accident or an automobile was involved, the smartest thing you can do is call our office for information.

Why You Should Report All Drivers On Your Car Insurance

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Mon, 11 Sep 2017 04:00:00 GMT

Everyone loves saving money, but it could cost you if your current means of doing so include not listing all drivers of your vehicle on your insurance policy. SMDA recently worked a case where the insurance company claimed they were entitled to deny no-fault insurance benefits to our client because he allegedly was not listed as a named insured on his commercial vehicle automobile insurance policy. The company attempted to apply the holding from the Court of Appeals in Barnes v Farmers, 308 Mich App 1 (2014), to this case involving a commercial policy to ask the Court to rule that our client was not entitled to receive No-Fault insurance benefits following a collision. However, the Court determined that the Barnes case only pertained to personal automobile insurance policies and not commercial policies. Since the SMDA client was operating a commercial vehicle at the time of the accident, the holding from Barnes was inapplicable to our client. However, our case should act as a good reminder for anyone, especially families, with a personal No-Fault automobile insurance policy to list alldrivers of the car on the policy, no matter how little time they spend in it and here’s why:

Background

The Barnes case resulted from a car accident involving the owner and driver of a vehicle who applied for No-Fault benefits from the company that issued the insurance policy on her vehicle. The Plaintiff and her mother were the sole owners of the vehicle. However, the No-Fault insurance policy covering their vehicle was purchased by the mother’s friend, as he was also using the car in order to assist the mother who was disabled. That person was the only named insured driver on the policy. After the daughter was injured in a collision, the insurance company denied the claim stating that she was an owner of the vehicle and she had failed to to maintain insurance on her car which is a requirement to obtain no-fault automobile insurance benefits following a collision. The car she was operating was insured under the friend’s name. However, she was the owner and operator of the car but she was was not listed on the personal no-fault insurance policy and thus not entitled to any benefits. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals upheld this ruling meaning that whatever the injured driver/owner of the car saved by not being listed on the policy, she lost far more in No-Fault benefits following this collision.

How Could This Affect My Claim?

Many people, families especially, don’t list all operators of the car on their automobile insurance policy. Sometimes, it is an oversight and sometimes it is because it is more expensive to do so. For families with many children, all of whom drive the family car, the costs of adding each individual child can be intimidating for many parents, but it can be worth it as it displayed by the outcome of the Barnes case. The same goes for other owners of a vehicle who have multiple drivers using their car. If a driver has unfettered access to the car or usage of the car for over a month, even if the vehicle is not registered or titled in their name, they can be considered a constructive owner who is required to be named insured on the policy under the Barnes case. Since there is no way to know when an accident will occur, it is to the benefit of everyone who shares a car to be listed on the insurance policy so there is no dispute that they are entitled to No-Fault benefits in case of an accident. Medical bills can be overwhelming after an accident. No one wants to give their insurance company an excuse to deny them Michigan No-Fault Automobile Insurance coverage which is necessary for them to recover from their injuries and resume the normal rhythm of their life.

Everyone wants to imagine that an accident will never happen to them, but to make sure you don’t end up footing the bill of a car accident yourself, prepare for the worst and list every driver to your personal insurance policy before the costs of an uncovered accident surprise you.

One Step Closer to Justice for Grieving Family

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Tue, 01 Aug 2017 04:00:00 GMT

SMDA is pleased to update the status of the victory in the trial win against the auto insurer of a grieving family of their minor daughter who was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision. SMDA tried this case to verdict and successfully defended the case in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The case was tried over three days in August of 2015. SMDA, with the assistance of counsel for Mary Free Bed Hospital and Covenant Health Care, won a verdict of over one million dollars following a hard fought trial. Plaintiff’s daughter, who passed away in a house fire before trial, was 15 years old at the time of the crash. She sustained serious injuries as a result of a single car accident while she was on her way to school. Her right to receive automobile no-fault insurance benefits rested on whether or not the she had permission to drive the car. Since the insurance company alleged that she did not have permission and thus was not entitled to receive any benefits from her mother’s automobile insurance policy, it was their burden to explicitly prove she took the car without her parents’ permission. Although her mother initially stated that her daughter had taken the car without permission, under testimony both parents and the minor plaintiff unequivocally testified that she had permission to take the family car. The insurance company also argued that permission could not be legally granted because the minor only had a permit and she could not legally operate the vehicle without a licensed adult in the car.

At trial, her mother, who is a rehabilitation nurse, admitted that she initially told the Defendant Insurance Company adjustor that her daughter didn’t have permission to take the car. However, she indicated that she was afraid that if she admitted that she allowed her daughter to take the car, she would be criminally prosecuted and she would be unable to take care of her daughter. Her father also testified that his daughter had permission to take the car on that day and that she had been given permission to take the car a number of times previously. With the testimony of both of the client’s parents, and the client’s own testimony presented through testimony provided before she passed away from an unrelated house fire, and the testimony of a half dozen eyewitness that she had driven the car alone without supervision before the accident, and some who were present when her parents gave her permission to do so, the lawyers from SMDA were able to win the case in favor of the teen. After a three day trial, the jury awarded the estate of the injury victim $246,897.00 in overdue benefits and another $1,018,467.00 to Covenant Medical Center Inc. and Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital for a total verdict of $1,265,364.00.

After the trial, the defendant filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals alleging that the teen had illegally taken the car, consequently nullifying her ability to make a claim. However, the Court of Appeals held that the specific wording of the statute which, when analyzed, requires that whoever operates the vehicle only need to acquire it by legal means regardless of whether or not they operate it legally in order to qualify for no-fault insurance benefits. Since SMDA proved that the minor driver had received permission to “take” the car, regardless of the fact that she only had a permit, the appeal was denied. Now that the Supreme Court refused defendant’s request to hear the case, this matter has finally been resolved once and for all allowing the family the closure they deserve.

Why Uninsured And Underinsured Coverage Is Important

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Tue, 09 May 2017 04:00:00 GMT

ot many people know about uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage.

Uninsured motorist coverage covers you when you are injured as a result of a driver who did not have insurance, a hit and run driver, or a driver of a stolen car. Uninsured motorist coverage is provided by your own insurance company. The cost of this coverage is usually nominal and should be considered when purchasing auto insurance.

Underinsured motorist coverage allows you to recover from your own insurance company, money to pay for damages incurred from an at-fault driver who does not have enough insurance to cover your damages. Not enough people elect to have this type of coverage, but it is important to consider because these situations are far too common.

With an underinsured policy (which you also get from your own insurance provider) you first are entitled to the full amount of the other person’s coverage and then on top of that, whatever your underinsured policy amount is. This is an insurance policy that makes sure that you are covered no matter what type of insurance the other person who caused the accident may have.

In order to recover your uninsured motorist coverage, you must prove that the other driver was not insured AND that the accident was their fault. To recover your underinsured motorist coverage you must take the full amount of the other person’s coverage that they do have. Then you are entitled to your own policy.

Coordinating No-Fault Insurance with Health Care Insurance

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:00:00 GMT

The Michigan No-Fault law provides in pertinent part: An insurer providing personal protection insurance benefits shall offer, at appropriately reduced premium rates, deductibles and exclusions, reasonably related to other health and accident coverage on the insured.

Case law supports that there was no intent by the Legislature when it mandated that no-fault carriers make available coordinated coverage at a reduced cost to correspondingly prohibit health insurers from including coordination of benefits clauses in the coverage provided by the health insurance policy. As a matter of contract interpretation, a no-fault insured is not entitled to receive duplicate payment for medical expense where the insured had elected uncoordinated benefits under his no-fault policy, but his health insurance policy contained a coordination of benefits clause.

The option of choosing between uncoordinated or coordinated no-fault automobile insurance does not exist for an individual who does not have underlying health or accident insurance that applies to automobiles. That individual must pay the higher premium for uncoordinated no-fault insurance. Therefore, the individual who is unemployed or does not have employment that provides health insurance must purchase uncoordinated no-fault insurance.

Keep this in mind when electing whether you would like to carry coordinated vs. uncoordinated no-fault benefits as you will need to know if your health insurance company will be primary if you are involved in an auto accident or if it specifically excludes auto accidents. While most no-fault policies are coordinated policies, many more health care companies are no longer provding primary coverage for claimants involved in auto accidents. As a result, it is important to know what you are paying for when it comes to your health care and auto insurance before you sustain injuries

Paying for car damage after an accident

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:00:00 GMT

In Michigan, if you are involved in a car accident that was caused by another driver, you are entitled to recover up to $1000 from the at-fault driver’s insurance company. You must contact the insurance company of the driver who caused the accident and ask for the mini tort coverage. You should include photos of your vehicle, estimate of repairs, the police report, and a declaration sheet from your own automobile insurance company.

When you are involved in an accident that was caused by someone else, the at fault driver should your deductible and then your auto insurance will cover the remainder of the damages.

If you have been involved in a car accident, call SMDA law today and we can help you recover the money you are entitled to.

Who Pays For Vehicle Damage After A Car Accident?

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Fri, 22 May 2015 04:00:00 GMT

If you are involved in a car accident that was caused by another driver, you are entitled to recover money for the damages. Michigan has a mini tort law in which a victim of a car accident can recover up to $1000 for damage caused to his/her car. This amount is recovered from the automobile insurance company of the driver who caused the accident. You, or your attorney, must contact and make a claim with the at fault driver’s insurance company and request the money. This amount is to cover your deductible, and then your own insurance company should cover for the remaining damage.

If you are involved in an accident caused by another driver, you should not have to pay any money out of your own pocket. Be sure to contact the proper insurance company to receive your money.

Auto Insurance, Part II

Serafini, Michalowski, Derkacz & Associates — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 04:00:00 GMT

What do your premiums get you?

It is important that when you purchase auto insurance that you have a discussion with your agent about uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage and liability coverage.

What does all this mean?

Uninsured motorist coverage protects you if someone causes an accident who is uninsured.

Underinsured motorist coverage protects you if someone who causes an accident, has insurance, but is underinsured. The statutory minimum is a 20/40 policy. Clearly, $20,000 is not a lot of money, today. The minimum has never been updated since the 1970’s. As a result you can purchase underinsured motorist coverage with a larger maximum in order to protect you and your family if you were seriously injured in an auto accident to cover your pain and suffering, loss of abilities, loss of social enjoyments, loss of activities, you once engaged in, in excess of the tortfeasor’s policy.

You should know if you have these types of coverages. Adding these coverages is usually relatively inexpensive.

You should also know what your liability limits are as well. Liability limits cover you if you unfortunately cause an accident and hurt someone else. The higher the liability limits the less likely you will be subject to personal exposure if you hurt someone and the value of their injuries exceed your policy limits.

Talk to your agent. Knowing what you are paying for will greatly reduce your stress, if and when you are involved in an accident. After an accident occurs is not the time to find out what kind of coverage you have. It can and will protect you, so get informed. Information is strength and will help you be better prepared, if and when the time comes.