Michigan Adjuster Insurance Exam 2026

Two Adjusters, Three Lines, and a Firm That Is Registered Rather Than Licensed

The Michigan adjuster license is issued by the Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS) under Chapter 12 of the Insurance Code of 1956, MCL 500.1200 to 500.1247. That chapter is captioned "Agents, Solicitors, Adjusters, and Counselors" — four license classes in one place — and the adjuster provisions occupy just five sections of it.

Michigan issues two adjuster licenses, and DIFS defines them by who you act for:

Insurance Adjuster — "An individual allowed by license to contract with and represent insurance companies." DIFS also calls this the independent adjuster. Its lines of authority are fire and other hazards, workers' compensation, and crop.

Adjuster for the Insured — "An individual allowed by license to contract with and represent the insured who have suffered losses." This is Michigan's name for what other states call a public adjuster, and it is confined to fire and other hazards, excluding workers' compensation.

Workers' compensation is not a free-standing line. NIPR states the rule operationally: "Resident Insurance Adjuster applicants applying for workers' compensation LOA must actively hold or apply for fire & other hazards simultaneously." You cannot hold the workers' compensation authority on its own.

And adjusting firms are not licensed at all. DIFS: "Adjusting firms are not licensed but are registered by the State of Michigan." Registration is a signed letter on company letterhead giving the firm name, FEIN, mailing address, contact information and firm type, emailed to DIFS. No fee and no renewal date is published for it, and MCL 500.240 — the fee schedule — contains no adjusting-firm line item at all. The individual application asks whether you work for a firm; the firm itself is on a register, not a license list.

The Adjuster Block Is Five Sections Wide

Chapter 12 contains 46 sections, and they can be listed end to end: 500.1200, .1201, .1201a, .1202, .1203, .1204, .1204a, .1204b, .1204c, .1204d, .1204e, .1204f, .1205, .1206, .1206a, .1206b, .1206c, .1207, .1208, .1208a, .1208b, .1209, .1210, .1211, .1211a, .1211b, .1212, .1214, .1216, .1218, .1222, .1224, .1226, .1227, .1228, .1232, .1234, .1236, .1238, .1239, .1240, .1242, .1243, .1244, .1246 and .1247.

Sections .1200 through .1218 are producer machinery. Sections .1232 through .1236 are insurance counselors. The adjuster is .1222 through .1228 — five sections.

Two further sections reach adjusters from outside that block: 500.1238 requires reporting a change of mailing and electronic mail address, and names "agent, solicitor, counselor, or adjuster"; and 500.1239 carries the grounds for licensing action.

The gaps in the numbering are worth knowing, because they are what proves a negative. Chapter 12 has no .1213, .1215, .1217, .1219 through .1221, .1223, .1225, .1229 through .1231, .1233, .1235, .1237, .1241 or .1245. When this guide says a requirement does not exist in Michigan, that conclusion rests on reading the sections that do exist rather than on failing to find one.

Chapter 12 Is Shared, and the Producer Provisions Outnumber the Adjuster Ones

This is the single most useful habit to bring to Michigan, and it is what decides several of the answers below.

Chapter 12 governs four license classes in one place, and the producer provisions vastly outnumber the adjuster ones. A subsection about education, or renewal, or discipline can read as though it applies to everyone in the chapter — while the sentence a few lines above says "insurance producer."

So read the noun. Every time. Here is that check applied to every requirement this guide reports:

MCL 500.1222 — the License Requirement, and Who Is Outside It

Unlike a number of states, Michigan puts its carve-outs in a section of their own rather than burying them in a definition. MCL 500.1222 is captioned "Adjuster's license required; exemptions," and it is where the question of who needs a license begins and ends.

The subject of the requirement is "a person" — not "an independent contractor," not "a person compensated by fee." That matters, because the exemptions do the narrowing rather than the definition.

A licensed producer occupies an unusual position in Michigan. Producers appear in the same chapter, are separately licensed, and are subject to their own education and renewal machinery. Whether and how far a producer may adjust a loss for the company that appointed them is a question to answer from § 1222's own text and from the producer's appointment — not from the general assumption, common elsewhere, that an appointed agent may always adjust.

The catastrophe route does not create an exemption. DIFS is explicit: "In the event of a catastrophe, emergency adjusters are required to become licensed in Michigan prior to adjusting claims." What DIFS offers is speed, not a waiver — it will "expedite the application process for emergency adjuster applicants," and applicants "should contact the Insurance Licensing Section at DIFS-Licensing@Michigan.gov to validate the emergency and receive special instructions." Each individual still submits an electronic application through NIPR.

No Classroom Hours, No Fingerprints — but a Real Disclosure Duty

There is no prelicensing education requirement for a Michigan adjuster, and the negative is established affirmatively rather than by failing to find one.

PSI's Michigan bulletin sorts its examinations into those that require prelicensing education and those that do not, and places Adjuster in the second group, alongside Counselor, Surplus Lines and Limited Lines — while the Life, Accident & Health, Property, Casualty and Personal Lines producer examinations sit in the first.

The administrative rules agree by their nouns. Michigan Administrative Code R 500.3 is captioned "Property, casualty, or personal lines insurance producers and solicitors; curriculum and final examination requirements"; R 500.4 is captioned "Life and accident and health producers; curriculum requirements." The word "adjuster" appears nowhere in R 500.1 through R 500.6, and R 500.1's definitions section defines only "Code," "Director" and "Instructor" — no licensee class at all.

And there are no fingerprints — for adjusters or for producers. No section of Chapter 12 requires fingerprints or a criminal history record check. The sections that would naturally carry such a requirement were each read and are silent: 500.1204, 500.1204e, 500.1205 (the resident producer licensing section, the most natural home for it), 500.1206, 500.1222, 500.1224 and 500.1239.

What Michigan requires instead is disclosure, backed by an agency check. DIFS: "DIFS staff members conduct several background checks on each applicant." And the applicant's own duty is broad: "All convictions must be reported, including: Misdemeanors, felonies and/or military offenses." Administrative actions and child-support compliance are also asked about, and a felony conviction requires a separate "Application for Written Consent to Engage in the Business of Insurance."

There Are Three Adjuster Examinations, Not One

Michigan's examinations are delivered by PSI, and the current source is the Michigan Insurance Candidate Information Bulletin, marked "Copyright (c) 2025 by PSI Services LLC Updated 6/10/25." Its exam table has four columns — "Examination Title | Time Limit | Number of Items | Cut Score" — and it lists three adjuster examinations:

Pretest items sit on top of the 100, so the number on the screen is larger than the number that counts: "In addition to the number of questions per examination, a small number of one to ten experimental items, generally, approximately 10% of the number of questions, may be administered to candidates during the examination."

The three DIFS lines of authority do not map onto the three PSI examinations, and this catches people out. DIFS licenses fire and other hazards, workers' compensation and crop. PSI's inventory splits on something else entirely — on whether you want workers' compensation authority, and on public versus independent. There is no crop adjuster examination and no standalone fire examination.

The examination is discretionary on its face. MCL 500.1224 provides that "the commissioner may subject the applicant to a written examination" — permissive, not mandatory. In practice DIFS requires it of residents and of nonresidents who are not already active in an examining state.

A Percentage, Not a Scaled Score — and No Statute Sets It

Michigan's cut score is expressed as a percentage. PSI labels the column "Cut Score" and prints values carrying a percent sign — 70% and 71%. The word "scaled" does not appear anywhere in the bulletin.

That is worth stating plainly because it is unusual. Several states publish a bare "70" that turns out on inspection to be a scaled score — a transformed figure that is expressly not a percentage of items answered correctly. Michigan is not one of them.

But note two silences in the same document. First, the bulletin never says whether the score reported back to you is percent-correct or itself a transformed figure — it labels the threshold and stops. Second, and more consequential:

No Michigan statute and no located administrative rule sets an adjuster passing score at all. MCL 500.1224 authorizes an examination and fixes no figure. There is no examination chapter in the Michigan Administrative Code's insurance rules. The 70% and 71% exist only as vendor policy, and PSI reserves the right to change them: "PLEASE BE ADVISED: Cut scores (score you must achieve to obtain a passing result) and content outlines are subject to change."

How the result reaches you: "Your score will be displayed on screen at the end of the examination and a score report will be emailed to you." And a failing candidate gets more detail than a passing one — "If you fail, the emailed score report will include the diagnostic report indicating your strengths and weaknesses by examination type."

Two Clocks, and the Shorter One Is the One That Ends Your Application

Retakes are unusually easy in Michigan. There is no waiting period beyond a bar on testing twice in one day: "It is not possible to make a new examination appointment on the same day you have taken an examination; this is due to processing and reporting results." PSI then spells out the practical consequence: "A candidate who tests unsuccessfully on a Wednesday can call the next day, Thursday, and retest as soon as Friday, depending upon space availability."

No cap on the number of attempts is published by PSI or by DIFS. Reported here as a silence rather than as a permission.

And then there are two shelf-life clocks that are easy to conflate.

PSI's clock is twelve months: "Passing examination results are valid for 12 months from the 'pass' date."

DIFS's clock is six: "An application is good for six months from entry into our database," and "If the examination is not passed within six months, the applicant must submit a new license application and fee."

The six-month clock is the one that governs. A passing score stays alive at the vendor for a year, but the application it attaches to dies at six months — and when it dies you pay the application fee again.

The examination fee is charged per attempt and does not travel: "EXAMINATION FEES ARE NOT REFUNDABLE OR TRANSFERABLE. THE EXAMINATION FEE IS VALID FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT."

About $61 — and One Fee the Statute Prices Differently

Michigan is among the least expensive adjuster licenses in the country, and that is a deliberate statutory choice rather than an accident.

The examination fee looks like it conflicts with the statute, and the statute resolves it itself. MCL 500.240(1)(h) sets a license examination fee of $10.00 — and MCL 500.240(4) switches that off whenever a vendor administers: "The examination fees described in subsection (1)(h) are applicable only if the examinations are administered by the director. If the examinations are administered by a designated authority other than the director, appropriate examination fees are payable directly to the designated authority." PSI's $41 is lawful; the statutory $10 is dormant.

The application fee has no such escape clause, and this guide publishes both figures. MCL 500.240(1)(d) states an amount, not a cap: "Application fee payable by each initial applicant for license as resident producer, nonresident producer, surplus lines producer, solicitor, counselor, or adjuster, not transferable or refundable — $10.00." DIFS and NIPR both publish $15.00. A plausible reading is $10 application plus the $5 first-year license fee under subsection (1)(g) — but no instrument says so, and it is not asserted here.

An Equivalence Route, Not a Waiver

A nonresident does not automatically sit the Michigan examination. DIFS requires it only "if the applicant is not active in another state that requires an examination" — so an adjuster already licensed in an examining state has a route in without retesting.

The application itself states the alternative: nonresident applicants "must either take the Michigan examination or provide proof of successful completion of equivalent" examination elsewhere.

Nonresidents must be licensed at home. DIFS: nonresident applicants "must be licensed in the state in which their principle place of residence" is located.

The fee difference is only the transaction fee — $15.00 plus $6.18 for a nonresident against $15.00 plus $5.00 for a resident. The renewal fee is identical at $5.00, and so is the 31 March expiration date: "Resident and non-resident adjuster licenses expire annually on March 31."

Every Adjuster License in Michigan Expires on 31 March

Michigan runs a single common expiration date, and it is 31 March. DIFS: "Resident and non-resident adjuster licenses expire annually on March 31." Both adjuster types, both residencies, one date.

The renewal fee is $5.00, and it is one of the few figures in this guide where the statute and the agency agree exactly. MCL 500.240(1)(g): "Adjuster's license, each year $5.00."

Miss it and the license is canceled, not merely late. DIFS: "Renewals not paid by March 31 will result in cancellation of the license and the license status will be changed to Inactive."

No grace period and no late fee is published. That is reported here as a silence, not as a published zero — DIFS states neither, and an unpublished grace period is not the same thing as a stated absence of one.

There is no continuing education condition on renewal. DIFS's renewal page conditions it solely on "an annual renewal fee of $5.00 before the license expires on March 31" and never mentions education. See Continuing Education below for why.

One honest gap: the 31 March date has no statutory source that could be located. MCL 500.240 establishes annual licensure and prices it; neither that section nor MCL 500.1222 or 500.1224 fixes the calendar date. It appears to be administrative in origin, and this guide reports it that way rather than attributing it to a statute it is not in.

Twelve Months — and the Line Is Drawn by the Statutory Examination Waiver

Under twelve months inactive, DIFS states: "The applicant is not required to take an examination if requesting the same authority previously held."

Over twelve months, the applicant must follow the initial licensure process — including the examination.

That twelve-month line is not an administrative invention; it tracks the statute exactly. MCL 500.1224(2): "The commissioner may waive the examination requirements of this subsection for a person who has been licensed as an adjuster within the preceding 12 months."

Note the verb. "May waive" is discretionary, not an entitlement. DIFS administers it as a rule; the statute grants it as a power.

The reinstatement fee is published by NIPR at $15, for both the Resident Insurance Adjuster and the Resident Adjuster for Insured. DIFS's own reinstatement page publishes no fee.

Note also what the waiver is keyed to: "the same authority previously held." Coming back after a lapse and adding a line of authority you did not hold before takes you outside the waiver for that line.

Zero Hours — Proved by a Definition Inside the Section

Michigan imposes no continuing education on any adjuster. Not on the Insurance Adjuster, not on the Adjuster for the Insured, not on residents and not on nonresidents.

And the proof is a noun rather than a silence. The continuing education requirement is MCL 500.1204c, and subsection (2) attaches it to a producer: "an insurance producer wishing to renew his or her license shall renew his or her license by attending or instructing not less than 24 hours of continuing education classes approved by the director," of which "not less than 3 hours must be in ethics in insurance classes."

Then the section narrows its own term a second time. MCL 500.1201(g) gives a broad chapter-wide definition — "a person required to be licensed under the laws of this state to sell, solicit, or negotiate insurance." But MCL 500.1204c(16) overrides it inside that section with a closed two-item list: "'Insurance producer' means a life-health agent or property-casualty agent."

So the duty cannot reach an adjuster on either definition — an adjuster does not sell, solicit or negotiate insurance, and is neither kind of agent.

Nor is it supplied from anywhere else, and that is established by enumeration. Continuing education appears in Chapter 12 only at .1204c (the requirement), .1204d (the CE fund), .1204e(2) (nonresident reciprocity, whose noun is "nonresident insurance producer"), .1204f (long-term care training) and .1206(3) (lapse for failing 1204c). The five adjuster sections — .1222, .1224, .1226, .1227 and .1228 — contain no education provision of any kind.

The administrative rules do not supply it either. There is no continuing education rule part in the Michigan Administrative Code for insurance. And the one adjuster-specific rule part, "General Rules — Adjusters for Assured," now contains exactly one rule — R 501.10 — whose entire text is "Rescinded."

DIFS agrees by its own noun. Its continuing education page: "Resident producers and solicitors must earn 24 credits of State-approved education credit every two years." Adjusters appear nowhere on that page — not as required, and not on the exempt list either, because they were never in scope.

Two Sections Most Adjusters Have Never Read

Michigan's five adjuster sections include two that carry ongoing obligations rather than entry requirements, and they are the ones a licensed adjuster is actually held to.

MCL 500.1227 — "Conduct of adjuster; prohibitions." This is the adjuster's own conduct section, separate from the unfair trade practices chapter that applies to everyone. It is where Michigan states what an adjuster may not do in that capacity.

MCL 500.1228 — "Records of adjuster." A records duty stated in a section of its own. Several states have no adjuster records provision at all; Michigan captions one.

MCL 500.1226 — "Persons aiding adjuster; representation by adjuster; procedure for soliciting loss; schedule of rates; limitation on charges." The last two clauses of that catchline are the notable part: Michigan contemplates a schedule of rates and a limitation on charges in the adjuster chapter itself.

MCL 500.1238 requires reporting a change of mailing and electronic mail address, and its list is explicit — "agent, solicitor, counselor, or adjuster." This is one of the places the chapter names adjusters expressly rather than leaving them to a general noun, and it is worth noticing precisely because so much of Chapter 12 does not.

MCL 500.1239 carries the grounds for licensing action. Its catchline names the "insurance producer's" license, which is exactly the noun problem described above — so the question of which section authorizes adjuster discipline is one to resolve on the text rather than the catchline.

"A Person" — Which Includes You

The unfair trade practices chapter runs against people, not only against companies. MCL 500.2003(1): "A person shall not engage in a trade practice that is defined or described in this chapter or is determined under this chapter to be an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance."

And MCL 500.2003(2) extends the chapter's definition of "person" beyond the code's general definition to include producers, solicitors, counselors and adjusters.

So the Director's Chapter 20 machinery reaches the individual adjuster, not only the carrier: investigation under MCL 500.2028, notice and hearing under 500.2029 through 500.2034, findings and a cease and desist order under 500.2038, penalties under 500.2040, and court review or injunction under 500.2041 through 500.2045.

Violating a cease and desist order is expensive. MCL 500.2040: "(a) A monetary penalty of not more than $20,000.00 for each violation. (b) Suspension or revocation of the person's license or certificate of authority." And filing for review does not buy time — "does not stay enforcement."

The code-wide civil fine provision is MCL 500.150, with two tiers and an aggregate ceiling: $1,000 per violation; $5,000 per violation where the person knew or reasonably should have known; and an aggregate that "must not require the payment of civil fines exceeding $50,000.00."

Your civil exposure to an insured is a different and unresolved question. No Michigan appellate authority was located in either direction on whether an individual claims adjuster can be sued personally by an insured or a claimant. That is a negative found by searching, not one proved by structure, and this guide reports it as such.

Michigan Has No Claims Regulation — the Statute Is the Rule

Most states enact the unfair claims settlement practices act and then adopt the matching regulation, and the regulation is where the numbers live. Michigan adopted the act and never adopted the regulation.

This was checked by enumerating the Michigan Administrative Code's insurance rule parts in full, twice, from two independent mirrors. The parts are: no-fault self-insurance certificates; pre-licensure education; good moral character; PBM licensure; material transactions; utilization review; holding companies; captives; reserve financing; the no-fault fee schedule; surprise medical billing; unearned premium refund; safeguarding customer information; accident and sickness advertising; loss ratios; personal protection insurance; MEWA excess loss; variable life; actuarial opinion; declaratory rulings; uniform trade practices — independent hearing officer; credit for reinsurance; casualty rates; mortality tables; property and casualty reserves; surplus lines fees; smoker tables; fire and inland marine rates; workers' compensation; life and annuity advertising; essential insurance; hearing procedures; discretionary clauses; shortened limitation of action clauses; nonconforming clauses; adjusters for assured; health and accident agent examinations; farmers' mutual; and credit insurance.

Not one of them is a claims-handling rule. The only trade-practices entry — "Uniform Trade Practices — Independent Hearing Officer" — is procedural, about who presides at a Chapter 20 hearing, not about claim timing.

A caution worth stating, because the natural guess is wrong. Michigan Administrative Code R 500.2201 to R 500.2202 is "Insurance Policy Forms — Discretionary Clauses," and R 500.2211 to R 500.2212 is "Insurance Policy Forms — Shortened Limitation of Action Clauses." Neither is claims handling. A researcher who reads the rule numbers and assumes otherwise will report deadlines Michigan does not have.

So MCL 500.2026 is the rule, and MCL 500.2006 supplies the only numbers.

Fourteen Prohibited Acts — and Not One Number Among Them

MCL 500.2026 is Michigan's unfair claims settlement practices provision, and the first thing to notice is that it does not use the phrase everybody quotes.

The chapeau, verbatim: "Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance, other than isolated incidents, are a course of conduct indicating a persistent tendency to engage in that type of conduct and include:"

The NAIC formula — "with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice" — appears nowhere in Michigan. The element is functionally similar and textually different, and the section's own catchline confirms the framing: "Course of conduct indicating persistent tendency to engage in that type of conduct."

Fourteen acts follow, lettered (a) through (n):

(a) "Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue." · (b) "Failing to acknowledge promptly or to act reasonably and promptly upon communications with respect to claims." · (c) "Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims." · (d) "Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon the available information." · (e) "Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed." · (f) "Failing to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear." · (g) "Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts due."

(h) settling for less than a reasonable person would believe the claimant entitled to · (i) settling on an application altered without the insured's notice, knowledge or consent · (j) "Making a claims payment to a policyholder or beneficiary omitting the coverage under which each payment is being made" · (k) making known a policy of appealing arbitration awards to compel acceptance of less · (l) delaying by requiring a preliminary claim report and then a formal proof of loss · (m) "Failing to promptly settle claims where liability has become reasonably clear under 1 portion of the insurance policy coverage" to influence settlement under another · (n) "Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim."

Subsection (2) adds a complaint-record duty that is easy to overlook: failure to maintain a complete record of complaints since the last examination is itself an unfair practice, and the record must show "the total number of complaints, their classification by line of insurance, the nature of each complaint, the disposition thereof, and the time it took to process each complaint."

There is no subsection (3).

And here is the point that governs everything below: MCL 500.2026 contains ZERO numeric deadlines. Its only temporal words are "promptly" — in (b), (c), (l), (m) and (n) — and "within a reasonable time" in (e). Acknowledge, investigate and affirm-or-deny each carry a duty and no number.

Thirty Days, Sixty Days, Twelve Percent — All Calendar

Every numeric claim deadline in Michigan is statutory, and every one of them is in calendar days. None of MCL 500.2006(3), 500.2006(4), 500.2833(1)(p) or 500.3142 uses the words "business day" or "working day."

MCL 500.2006(3), verbatim: "An insurer shall specify in writing the materials that constitute a satisfactory proof of loss not later than 30 days after receipt of a claim unless the claim is settled within the 30 days. If proof of loss is not supplied as to the entire claim, the amount supported by proof of loss is considered paid on a timely basis if paid within 60 days after receipt of proof of loss by the insurer."

MCL 500.2006(4): interest runs "from a date 60 days after satisfactory proof of loss was received by the insurer at the rate of 12% per annum" — simple, not compound.

Because there is no acknowledgment deadline, the 30-day proof-of-loss letter is the closest thing Michigan has to one, and adjuster procedure should be built on it. It is a hard statutory date attached to a specific written act, and it starts running on receipt of the claim rather than on receipt of anything from the insured.

"Reasonably in Dispute" Does Not Save You on a First-Party Claim

This is the single most useful thing an adjuster can know about Michigan claim handling, and almost everybody gets it backwards.

MCL 500.2006(1) says failure to pay on a timely basis "is an unfair trade practice unless the claim is reasonably in dispute." That sentence is where the industry shorthand comes from — no penalty interest if the claim is reasonably in dispute.

The shorthand is wrong for first-party claims, and the Michigan Supreme Court said so.

Estate of Nickola v MIC General Ins Co, Docket No. 152535, Michigan Supreme Court, decided 12 May 2017: "The first sentence contains no 'reasonably in dispute' exemption from the imposition of penalty interest for the untimely payment of benefits due under an insurance contract." And: "An insured making a claim under his or her own insurance policy for UIM benefits cannot be considered a 'third party tort claimant' under MCL 500.2006(4)."

So separate the two questions. The "reasonably in dispute" language in subsection (1) governs whether the conduct is an unfair trade practice — a regulatory characterization. It does not gate the 12% interest owed to an insured under subsection (4).

The practical consequence: a first-party claim paid on day 90 after satisfactory proof of loss owes 12% from day 61 — even if the carrier's coverage position was entirely reasonable, and even if it ultimately prevailed on the disputed part.

A third-party tort claimant is in a completely different position, and must satisfy three conditions together: that liability "is not reasonably in dispute," that "the insurer has refused payment in bad faith," and that "the bad faith was determined by a court of law."

Other subsection (4) mechanics worth knowing: interest "must be paid in addition to and at the time of payment of the loss"; where the loss exceeds limits, "interest is payable based on the limits of insurance coverage rather than the amount of the loss"; if the insurer's offer is rejected and the claimant "does not subsequently recover an amount in excess of the amount offered, interest is not due"; and statutory interest "must be offset by any award of interest that is payable by the insurer."

Michigan Refuses the Tort — and Says So in Terms

This is the most important thing in Michigan claims law, and it runs opposite to what a national adjuster course teaches.

Kewin v Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co, Docket Nos. 60756 and 60757, Supreme Court of Michigan, decided 5 August 1980: "We decline to follow the California court and to declare the mere bad-faith breach of an insurance indemnity contract an independent and separately actionable tort, and to thereby open the door to recovery for mental pain and suffering caused by breach of a commercial contract."

The remedy is contract damages, and the measure is the ordinary contract measure: "The damages recoverable are those damages that arise naturally from the breach, or which can reasonably be said to have been in contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made."

And there are no mental-distress damages for the mere breach: "a disability income protection insurance policy contract is a commercial contract, the mere breach of which does not give rise to a right to recover damages for mental distress."

So the complete Michigan answer for a wrongly denied first-party claim is: the policy benefits; consequential damages that arise naturally from the breach or were in the parties' contemplation at contracting; and statutory 12% interest under MCL 500.2006(4). No punitive award, and no mental-distress award for the denial itself.

Exemplary or emotional-distress damages require tortious conduct existing independently of the breach — and a bad-faith denial is not, by itself, that independent conduct.

Practical consequence for the file: in most states the exposure on a mishandled first-party claim is open-ended, because the tort carries damages the contract does not. In Michigan the exposure is bounded by the contract measure plus a fixed statutory rate — which makes the 12% interest under MCL 500.2006 far more central to Michigan claim practice than it would be anywhere the tort exists.

No Private Right Under Chapter 20 — and the Consumer Protection Route Closed in 2001

There is no private cause of action under Michigan's unfair trade practices chapter. That negative is proved by enumeration: all 67 entries of Chapter 20 were listed, and none creates a private civil action for an unfair claims practice.

Enforcement is entirely Director-driven: examination and investigation under MCL 500.2028; notice of hearing under 500.2029; the hearing under 500.2030, 500.2032, 500.2033 and 500.2034; findings and a cease and desist order under 500.2038; finality under 500.2039; penalties under 500.2040; and court review or injunction under 500.2041, 500.2043 and 500.2045.

The Court of Appeals has said so — Isagholian v Transamerica Insurance Corp, Docket No. 142460, Michigan Court of Appeals, 1994: a violation of the trade practices act "does not give rise to a private cause of action"; the act provides "a comprehensive, exclusive scheme" enforced only by the Commissioner. (The opinion itself could not be retrieved from a primary host; docket, court and year are given rather than a reporter citation.)

And the Michigan Consumer Protection Act route is closed for anything on or after 28 March 2001.

MCL 445.904(3): "This act does not apply to or create a cause of action for an unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive method, act, or practice that is made unlawful by chapter 20 of the insurance code of 1956, 1956 PA 218," where "(a) The method, act, or practice occurred on or after March 28, 2001."

So anything unlawful under MCL 500.2026 is expressly outside the Consumer Protection Act.

Six Years, One Year on Fire — and a Fight About Shortening It

MCL 500.2833(1)(q) carries a tolling provision that is easy to miss and decisive in practice: "An action must be commenced within 1 year after the loss or within the time period specified in the policy, whichever is longer. The time for commencing an action is tolled from the time the insured notifies the insurer of the loss until the insurer formally denies liability."

Read what that does. The clock stops when the insured reports the loss and does not restart until the carrier formally denies. A file left open without a formal denial does not run the insured's limitation period down — it holds it still.

On whether a policy may shorten the period, Michigan has both a leading case and a regulation that answers it.

Rory v Continental Insurance Co, Docket No. 126747, Michigan Supreme Court, decided 28 July 2005 — an unambiguous contractual limitation period in an insurance policy is enforced as written, and is not subject to a judicial reasonableness review.

Then the regulator answered by rule. Michigan Administrative Code R 500.2211 to R 500.2212, "Insurance Policy Forms — Shortened Limitation of Action Clauses," prohibits shortened limitation clauses in personal insurance and declares them void and of no effect, for documents issued on or after 3 May 2007. R 500.2211 defines "personal insurance" as "all insurance policies underwritten and sold on an individual or group basis for personal, family, or household use."

The two are not in conflict. Rory states the rule of construction and still governs commercial policies; the rule governs content in personal lines. The answer on any given file depends on personal versus commercial, and on the issue date.

Michigan Rebuilt This in 2019 — Unlimited PIP Is Now a Choice

Michigan is a no-fault state, and in 2019 it rewrote the system with PA 21 and PA 22. The single change a national course will get wrong is that personal injury protection is no longer automatically unlimited.

MCL 500.3107c requires that for a policy "issued or renewed after July 1, 2020," the applicant or named insured "shall … select 1 of the following coverage levels":

Unlimited PIP survives — as an option, and as the default. MCL 500.3107c(3) and (4): where no effective selection is made and the premium presumption does not apply, "subsection (1)(d) applies to the policy" — that is, unlimited. A failure to elect does not produce the cheapest tier; it produces the most expensive one.

The selection binds a defined class, not just the buyer: "applies to the named insured, the named insured's spouse, and a relative of either domiciled in the same household, and any other person with a right to claim personal protection insurance benefits under the policy."

And there is an anti-stacking rule — where more than one policy could respond, "the benefits are only payable up to an aggregate coverage limit that equals the highest available coverage limit under any 1 of the policies."

Two more provisions worth carrying: a transportation network company may not select the $50,000 tier — it "shall only select limits under either subsection (1)(b), (c), or (d)"; and on every capped tier the insurer must offer an excess attendant-care rider: "An insurer shall offer, for a policy … to which a limit under subsection (1)(a) to (c) applies, a rider that will provide coverage for attendant care in excess of the applicable limit."

Medical Charges Run on a Percentage of Medicare

The 2019 reform put Michigan medical no-fault charges on a Medicare-based fee schedule at MCL 500.3157. The baseline reasonableness rule survives — "a physician, hospital, clinic, or other person that lawfully renders treatment … may charge a reasonable amount for the treatment or training" — but it is now "Subject to subsections (2) to (14)."

The percentages step down over three years and have now settled. These are the current figures:

When Medicare has no payable amount, the benchmark changes entirely. MCL 500.3157(7): where "Medicare does not provide an amount payable," the ceiling becomes a percentage of the provider's own charge as it stood on 1 January 2019 — either "the amount payable … under the person's charge description master in effect on January 1, 2019" or "the average amount the person charged for the treatment on January 1, 2019."

And that 2019 baseline is inflation-adjusted every year by the Department. DIFS Bulletin 2026-09-INS, issued 25 February 2026: "any amount payable that was in effect on January 1, 2019, for the purposes of MCL 500.3157(7) or MCL 500.3157(8) shall be increased by 16.38%," effective 2 July 2026 through 1 July 2027.

So the current figure is not in the statute. The statute fixes the 2019 baseline; the Department publishes the escalator; and the escalator changes annually. Read the current DIFS bulletin, not the section.

Fifty-Six Hours a Week — and the Class It Applies To Is Wider Than It Looks

This is among the most litigated provisions in Michigan, and its structure is genuinely unusual.

MCL 500.3157(10): "For attendant care rendered in the injured person's home, an insurer is only required to pay benefits for attendant care up to the hourly limitation in section 315 of the worker's disability compensation act of 1969, 1969 PA 317, MCL 418.315."

That cross-reference imports a cap of 56 hours per week.

Two conditions must BOTH hold for the cap to apply. First, the care must be rendered in the injured person's home. Second, it must be provided by one of three enumerated classes: "(a) An individual who is related to the injured person. (b) An individual who is domiciled in the household of the injured person. (c) An individual with whom the injured person had a business or social relationship before the injury."

And here is the part that surprises people: the no-fault class is BROADER than the workers' compensation class it borrows the number from. MCL 418.315's own 56-hour limit reaches only a spouse, brother, sister, child or parent. MCL 500.3157(10) imports only the number, then applies it to a wider group — any relative, any household member, and any pre-injury business or social acquaintance. A cousin, a roommate or a family friend is capped in no-fault and would not be under the workers' compensation section's own terms.

The cap is a floor on the insurer's obligation, not a ceiling on coverage. MCL 500.3157(11): "An insurer may contract to pay benefits for attendant care for more than the hourly limitation under subsection (10)." Pair that with the mandatory excess-attendant-care rider offer under MCL 500.3107c(8).

Thirty Days, Twelve Percent, and a Ninety-Day Billing Rule

MCL 500.3142(2): personal injury protection benefits "are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and of the amount of loss." Partial proof triggers a partial obligation — "the amount supported by reasonable proof is overdue if not paid within 30 days after the proof is received."

MCL 500.3142(4): "An overdue payment bears simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum."

And the 2019 reform added a defense the adjuster has to track actively. MCL 500.3142(3): "if a bill for the product, service, accommodations, or training is not provided to the insurer within 90 days after the product, service, accommodations, or training is provided, the insurer has 60 days in addition to the 30 days provided under subsection (2) to pay before the benefits are overdue." A late-billed service buys you ninety days instead of thirty — but only if you can show when the service was rendered and when the bill arrived.

Payment timing runs on a mailbox rule: "payment must be treated as made on the date a draft or other valid instrument was placed in the United States mail in a properly addressed, postpaid envelope, or, if not so posted, on the date of delivery."

On attorney fees, Michigan is bilateral — and the 2019 reform added a third prong. MCL 500.3148(1): the claimant's fee is charged against the insurer "if the court finds that the insurer unreasonably refused to pay the claim or unreasonably delayed in making proper payment." (2): a court "may award an insurer a reasonable amount against a claimant" for defending a claim "that was in some respect fraudulent or so excessive as to have no reasonable foundation." (3): a court may award the insurer a fee "against a claimant's attorney" where the client was solicited in violation of Michigan law or the rules of professional conduct.

And an attorney may not lien prematurely — a lien may not be claimed, filed or served "until both of the following apply: A payment for the claim is authorized under this chapter. A payment for the claim is overdue under this chapter."

Notice, a Rolling Limitation, and the Tolling the 2019 Reform Added

MCL 500.3145 is short and it does three separate things. Keep them apart.

Notice — one year from the accident. An action "may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accident that caused the injury unless written notice of injury … has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or unless the insurer has previously made a payment."

Limitation — rolling, from the most recent loss. Where notice or payment has occurred, "the action may be commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense, work loss, or survivor's loss has been incurred."

Damages — the one-year-back rule, which survived the reform intact. MCL 500.3145(2): "the claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced." A timely action does not open the whole history of the claim; it opens the preceding twelve months of it.

And the biggest change the 2019 reform made to this section is a tolling provision that did not exist before. MCL 500.3145(3): "A period of limitations applicable under subsection (2) … is tolled from the date of a specific claim for payment of the benefits until the date the insurer formally denies the claim."

With a diligence condition: "This subsection does not apply if the person claiming the benefits fails to pursue the claim with reasonable diligence."

Notice may come from the claimant or on their behalf — it "may be given to the insurer or any of its authorized agents by a person claiming to be entitled to benefits for the injury."

Property protection benefits are different and simpler: MCL 500.3145(5) — "An action for recovery of property protection insurance benefits may not be commenced later than 1 year after the accident." Flat, with no rolling provision.

A Definition the Legislature Wrote Down After the Court Reversed Itself

MCL 500.3135(1): "A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement."

The middle gateway has a history worth knowing, because it explains why the definition is now in the statute at all.

The arc: DiFranco (1986) read the threshold leniently → Kreiner v Fischer (2004) read it restrictively → McCormick v Carrier, Docket No. 136738, Michigan Supreme Court, decided 31 July 2010, overruled Kreiner and restored a lenient reading → and then the 2019 reform codified McCormick into the statute.

McCormick on the overruling: "We hold that Kreiner should be overruled because the Kreiner majority's interpretation of MCL 500.3135 departed from the statute's clear and unambiguous text."

The codified definition now sits at MCL 500.3135(5), and it tracks McCormick's three prongs almost verbatim. "Serious impairment of body function" means an impairment that:

(a) "It is objectively manifested, meaning it is observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions."

(b) "It is an impairment of an important body function, which is a body function of great value, significance, or consequence to the injured person."

(c) "It affects the injured person's general ability to lead his or her normal life, meaning it has had an influence on some of the person's capacity to live in his or her normal manner of living."

Why the codification matters more than it looks: the test had swung twice in twenty-four years on the composition of the Supreme Court. Putting it in the statute means it can no longer be undone that way.

Three Thousand Dollars, Keyed to the Accident Date

Michigan's "mini-tort" is the narrow window in which one driver may recover vehicle damage from another despite no-fault. It lives at MCL 500.3135(3)(e).

The 2019 reform tripled it, and the statute carries both figures in one sentence: "Damages up to $1,000.00 to a motor vehicle or, for motor vehicle accidents that occur after July 1, 2020, up to $3,000.00 to a motor vehicle, to the extent that the damages are not covered by insurance."

The trigger is the ACCIDENT date, not the policy date. That is unusual — most of the 2019 reform's provisions key to when the policy was issued or renewed. This one does not. A policy written in 2019 still carries the $3,000 exposure for an accident after 1 July 2020.

"To the extent that the damages are not covered by insurance" is doing real work: the mini-tort reaches the uninsured portion — most commonly the collision deductible — not the whole repair.

The figure is fixed. No inflation-adjustment sentence appears in the subsection.

And mini-tort actions have their own procedural subsection — MCL 500.3135(4): "All of the following apply to an action for damages under subsection (3)(e)."

Entirely Contractual — the Statute Was Repealed in 1973

Michigan has no uninsured motorist statute and no underinsured motorist statute. Both coverages are optional and purely contractual.

And the proof of that negative is unusually clean, because the statute did not merely go unenacted — it was affirmatively repealed and its section number reassigned. Michigan's former uninsured motorist provision was MCL 500.3010, and it was repealed in 1973. The section number now carries something entirely unrelated: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, an automobile insurer shall not pay a claim of $2,000.00 or more for loss or damage caused by fire or explosion…" The Compiler's Notes on the current section confirm that a former MCL 500.3010, repealed in 1973, "pertained to uninsured motorist coverage."

MCL 500.3009, the residual liability section, does not mention uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage either.

What follows for the file: there is no statutory minimum limit for UM or UIM, no statutory offer-and-written-rejection procedure, no statutory anti-stacking rule and no statutory trigger definition. All of it is policy language. Two carriers' UM forms in Michigan can differ on the trigger, on stacking, on set-off and on arbitration, and neither is departing from a statute — because there is no statute to depart from.

So the first move on any Michigan UM or UIM question is to read the form, not the code.

Michigan Writes Its Own Fire Policy — and a Repealed Section Still Sets the Floor

Michigan does not adopt the New York 1943 standard form. The former Michigan standard fire policy sat at MCL 500.2832, and it was repealed by 1990 PA 305. In its place, MCL 500.2833 prescribes the provisions every fire policy must contain.

But the repealed section did not disappear from the analysis. MCL 500.2833(2) imports it as a coverage floor: a policy "shall contain, at a minimum, the coverage provided in the standard fire policy under former section 2832."

That is a genuine outlier, and it is a trap for anyone reading only the repeal. A researcher who finds § 2832 repealed and stops there will understate the required coverage — the repealed text still fixes the minimum.

MCL 500.2833(1) runs from (a) through (s), not to (q) as is sometimes assumed; (r) is subrogation and (s) is the inception hour.

The provisions an adjuster meets first:

(1)(a) — the coverage floor: "the policy shall provide, at a minimum, coverage for the actual cash value of the property at the time of the loss, subject to all other provisions contained herein."

(1)(p) — payment: "The loss is payable within 30 days after receipt of proof of amount of loss."

(1)(q) — suit and tolling: "An action must be commenced within 1 year after the loss or within the time period specified in the policy, whichever is longer," and "The time for commencing an action is tolled from the time the insured notifies the insurer of the loss until the insurer formally denies liability."

Note that (1)(q) sets a floor, not a ceiling — "whichever is longer" means a policy period longer than a year governs, and a shorter one cannot. And in personal lines, Michigan Administrative Code R 500.2212 voids shortened limitation clauses outright for documents issued on or after 3 May 2007.

An Anti-Fraud Unit, Broad Immunity — and No Reporting Deadline

Michigan's insurance fraud provisions are compact and can be enumerated in full. Chapter 45 has exactly five sections — MCL 500.4501 (definitions), .4503 (fraudulent insurance acts), .4507 (release of information), .4509 (civil liability and immunity) and .4511 (violation as a felony; notice to the licensing authority). Chapter 63 has exactly four — MCL 500.6301 through .6304.

The enforcement body's statutory name is the Anti-Fraud Unit. MCL 500.6301(1): "An anti-fraud unit is established as a criminal justice agency in the department, dedicated to prevention and investigation of criminal and fraudulent activities in the insurance market."

Its reach is deliberately wide — MCL 500.6301(2): it "may investigate all persons, including, but not limited to, persons subject to the department's regulatory authority, consumers, insureds, and any other persons allegedly engaged in criminal and fraudulent activities in the insurance market." Its records are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act under MCL 500.6302, and it reports annually to the Legislature under MCL 500.6303.

Note the naming difference: DIFS operationally styles it the Fraud Investigation Unit (FIU) and publishes an annual FIU report. The statute says "anti-fraud unit." Use the statutory name when citing MCL 500.6301.

Immunity for reporting is broad, and the standard is absence of malice. MCL 500.4509(1): "A person acting without malice is not subject to liability for filing a report or requesting or furnishing orally or in writing other information concerning suspected or completed insurance fraud, unless that person knows that the report or other information contains false information pertaining to any material fact or thing."

Subsection (3) is broader still, covering "an insurer, or any officer, employee, or agent of an insurer" against "libel, slander, or any other tort" for "filing a report, providing information, or otherwise cooperating with an investigation or examination."

But no mandatory reporting deadline was found. MCL 500.6301 confers investigative powers and imposes nothing on regulated persons, and MCL 500.4509 is framed permissively throughout — it protects voluntary reporting rather than compelling it. This guide therefore does not publish a reporting deadline for Michigan, and states that the negative rests on enumeration plus catchlines rather than on a full-text read of all five Chapter 45 sections.

And no fraud warning statement is required on Michigan claim forms. Nothing in Chapter 45's five sections is captioned as a form-notice requirement, and Michigan is absent from the leading state-by-state warning compilation. Because there is no requirement, there is no verbatim text to reproduce — carriers that print one in Michigan are doing so as a business practice.

Five Million a Claim — Except the Two Kinds of Claim Michigan Pays in Full

Michigan's property-casualty safety net is Chapter 79 of the Insurance Code, MCL 500.7901 through 500.7949. The chapter can be enumerated in full: 7901 · 7911 · 7911a · 7912 · 7914 · 7916 · 7918 · 7921 · 7925 · 7931 · 7933 · 7935 · 7941 · 7945 · 7947 · 7948 · 7949. Life and disability insolvencies run through a separate association and are not in this chapter.

Membership is not optional and not a separate application. MCL 500.7911(1): "Each insurer shall be a member of the association as a condition of its authority to continue to transact insurance in this state." Two carve-outs matter to an adjuster reading a policy on an insolvent carrier: surplus lines insurers writing under Chapter 19 are excluded, and so is the Michigan Basic Property Insurance Association — the section says "except the michigan basic property insurance association created pursuant to section 2920." A surplus lines policy has no guaranty backing in Michigan.

"Covered claim" is a six-element conjunctive definition, and every element has to be satisfied. Under MCL 500.7925(1)(a)–(f), the obligation must (a) arise out of a policy issued to, or payable to, a Michigan resident; (b) be unpaid; (c) be presented on or before the last date fixed for filing claims in the domiciliary delinquency proceeding; (d) have been incurred or existed before, at, or within 30 days after the receiver's appointment; (e) arise out of any kind of insurance except life and disability; and (f) arise out of a policy issued on or before the last date the insurer was a member.

There is no fixed filing deadline to memorize — the deadline is the receivership bar date. MCL 500.7925(1)(c) points at "the last date fixed for the filing of claims in the domiciliary delinquency proceedings." That date comes out of the liquidation order in the insurer's home state, not out of the Michigan statute. Any source that gives Michigan a flat number of days for guaranty claim filing is describing a different state.

The per-claim cap is a $5,000,000 statutory base, CPI-adjusted annually. MCL 500.7925(6) excludes "that portion of a claim, other than a worker's compensation claim or a claim for personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107, that is in excess of $5,000,000.00." The adjustment runs on 1 January and reaches claims made on or after that date, with the cap in effect at the time of payment controlling.

Read that exclusion clause carefully, because it is the single most useful guaranty fact in Michigan. The words "other than a worker's compensation claim or a claim for personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107" mean workers' compensation claims and no-fault PIP benefits are not capped at all. Michigan pays those in full. In a state where PIP can still be written unlimited under MCL 500.3107c, that is not a theoretical distinction.

The net-worth exclusion is $25,000,000, and it bars the claim from both directions. MCL 500.7925(4) excludes "obligations for any first party or third party claim by or against an insured whose net worth exceeds $25,000,000.00" — measured consolidated with subsidiaries and affiliates, on 31 December (or fiscal year end) of the year immediately before the insolvency, and CPI-adjusted. A large insured loses guaranty protection as a claimant and cannot have a third-party claim against it paid either.

Unearned premium is covered only to the first $500.00 from each person from any one insolvent insurer, per MCL 500.7925(2)(a), CPI-adjusted, and "a refund in an amount less than $50.00 shall not be made for unearned premiums." The indexed maximum for 1 July 2026 through 30 June 2027 is $2,063 — DIFS Bulletin 2026-13-INS, dated 23 April 2026, certifies that the Director "performed the CPI review and adjusted the maximum unearned premium refund for the period from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, to $2,063."

Michigan imposes no claimant deductible. That negative can be proved rather than assumed, by enumerating every exclusion in §7925: (2)(a) unearned premium above the first $500; (2)(b) obligations after expiration, replacement or cancellation; (2)(c) obligations under §§2001–2050; (3) subrogation, contribution and indemnification claims by reinsurers, insurers, pools and HMOs; (4) net worth above $25 million; (5) amounts above policy limits; (6) amounts above the $5 million cap; and (7) pre-receivership adjustment expense, attorney fees, court costs, interest and bond premiums. None of the seven is a per-claim deductible on the claimant. The NAIC model has a $100 deductible; Michigan did not adopt it.

Subsection (7) is the one that changes how you handle a transferred file. Pre-receivership loss adjustment expense, attorney fees, court costs, interest and bond premiums are not covered claims. Fees your firm earned before the receiver was appointed do not travel with the file to the Association.

Coverage does not continue indefinitely. MCL 500.7931(4) continues coverage until expiration, replacement or cancellation, "but in no event for more than 30 days after the date the receiver was appointed," and subsection (5) lets the Association cancel on 10 days' written notice notwithstanding any contrary statute or policy provision.

When the Association takes the file, it takes the insurer's position — not a softer one. MCL 500.7931(2) gives it "the same rights as the insolvent insurer would have had if not in receivership," including the right to deny a claim that is not covered. It also "shall not have a cause of action against the insureds of the insolvent insurer for any sums it has paid out" except a cause of action the insurer itself would have had. Adjusting for the Association is adjusting the policy, with the same coverage defenses and none of the extra leverage.

Other recoveries come off first. MCL 500.7931(3) credits damages or benefits recoverable from other sources against the covered claim, requires exhaustion of other coverage, coordinates with other states' associations, and carries a special rule for worker's disability compensation claims that cross-references MCL 418.354 — so a WC claim against an insolvent carrier runs through the same offset scheme the WC act itself uses.

Funding is post-insolvency, not a pre-funded pool. MCL 500.7941 assesses member insurers after the fact; MCL 500.7945 provides a stay of proceedings; MCL 500.7948 provides immunity.

Fourteen Days to Pay, Ninety to Notice, Two Years to Claim — and a Line of Authority You Have to Ask For

Workers' compensation is a separate line of authority on the Michigan adjuster license, and it is not automatic. DIFS issues the Insurance Adjuster license with lines for "Fire and other hazards," "Worker's Compensation" and "Crop." NIPR adds the pairing rule: "Resident Insurance Adjuster applicants applying for workers' compensation LOA must actively hold or apply for fire & other hazards simultaneously." And the Adjuster for the Insured credential cannot reach it at all — that credential is confined to fire and other hazards, "excluding workers' compensation."

The governing act is not the Insurance Code. It is the Worker's Disability Compensation Act of 1969, 1969 PA 317, MCL 418.101 et seq., administered by the Workers' Disability Compensation Agency inside LEO rather than by DIFS. Chapter and section numbers starting 418 are the WDCA; 500 is the Insurance Code. Mixing them is the most common Michigan citation error.

The benefit formula is 80% of the after-tax average weekly wage. MCL 418.301(7) sets "80% of the employee's after-tax average weekly wage" for total disability and subsection (8) sets "80% of the difference" for partial. The maximum is 90% of the state average weekly wage for the year prior to the injury.

The 2026 figures: state average weekly wage $1,333.88, maximum weekly benefit $1,201.00. The minimum for death benefits is 50% of the SAWW — $666.94 — and the minimum for specific loss and total and permanent disability is 25% — $333.47. Two-thirds of the SAWW is $889.25. These come from the WDCA state-average-weekly-wage chart and the 2026 Weekly Benefit Tables, published under MCL 418.313(2), which directs the director to publish tables of the average weekly wage and the 80% after-tax average weekly wage.

None of those numbers is in the statute, and they move every year. The rate book carries an internal date of 18 December 2025 that appears nowhere in its filename or URL. Read the date inside the document. The chart also carries a limit worth knowing: "Discontinued fringe benefits may not be used to raise the weekly benefits above this amount. Attorney fees may not be based on a benefit rate higher than this amount."

Employee notice to the employer is 90 days. MCL 418.381(1): "The employee shall provide a notice of injury to the employer within 90 days after the happening of the injury, or within 90 days after the employee knew, or should have known, of the injury."

But late notice is not fatal, and this is where files get mishandled. The same subsection continues: "Failure to give such notice to the employer shall be excused unless the employer can prove that he or she was prejudiced by the failure to provide such notice." The 90 days is not jurisdictional. Denying on late notice alone, without prejudice, is denying on a ground the statute has already answered.

The claim limitation is 2 years, measured from the later of three events — "the date of injury, the date disability manifests itself, or the last day of employment with the employer against whom claim is being made." An oral claim to the employer suffices; a written claim may go to the agency instead. And the 2 years is extended by any period during which other disability benefits were paid or favored work was provided.

Two more back-look rules sit alongside it. MCL 418.381(2) bars payment for any period more than 2 years before the application for hearing was filed; subsection (3) shortens that to 1 year for nursing and attendant care.

The employer reports "immediately" on Form WC-100. Mich Admin Code R 408.31a: "An employer shall report immediately, to the agency, on form WC-100." The trigger is disability extending beyond 7 consecutive days, not counting the date of injury — or death, or specific loss.

The carrier's clock is 14 days, and it is a pay-or-dispute clock rather than a pay clock. MCL 418.801(1): compensation "shall become due and payable on the fourteenth day after the employer has notice or knowledge of the disability or death, on which date all compensation then accrued shall be paid." On or before that same fourteenth day, Mich Admin Code R 408.33 requires the carrier to notify the agency on Form WC-107 if the right to compensation is disputed. Same day, two possible filings — payment or WC-107.

Form WC-701 reports the payment, filed "on the day after the first payment of compensation," and again when benefits begin, change or stop.

The late-payment penalty is $50.00 per day after 30 days, capped at $1,500.00 — MCL 418.801(2): "$50.00 per day shall be added and paid to the worker for each day over 30 days in which the benefits are not paid." It applies only where there is no ongoing dispute. A parallel penalty under subsection (3) covers unpaid medical bills and travel expense at $50.00 per day or the amount of the bill, whichever is less, also capped at $1,500.00, running 30 days after certified-mail notice of nonpayment.

Three tail provisions round it out. Penalty payments may not be counted as loss for rate-making; an employer that fails to notify its carrier owes the penalty itself; and interest on awards accrues at the civil money-judgment rate — MCL 418.801(4)–(6). MCL 418.805 requires employers to keep injury records and report as the director requires.

2011 PA 266 rewrote the disability standard, and it is still the governing framework. The act took immediate effect 19 December 2011 and amended MCL 418.301, 418.381, 418.354 and 418.801 together — the same act sits at the foot of all four history lines. It defined "disability" statutorily for the first time as "a limitation of an employee's wage earning capacity in work suitable to his or her qualifications and training," which is a labor-market test rather than a can-you-do-your-old-job test.

It also made wage earning capacity constructive. MCL 418.301(4)(b) charges the employee with "the wages the employee earns or is capable of earning at a job reasonably available to that employee, whether or not wages are actually earned" — with an affirmative duty to look for reasonably available work. Wage loss was separated from disability and must be causally tied to it, so a claimant can be disabled and still recover nothing. The safety valve: a partially disabled employee who makes a good-faith search and cannot find suitable work is paid as if totally disabled.

And it codified the claimant's showing as a four-part burden — disclose qualifications and training; identify jobs within the pre-injury salary range he is qualified to perform; show the injury prevents performing some or all of them; and show he cannot obtain the ones he could still perform despite a good-faith search — with burden-shifting written in at MCL 418.301(6): once that showing is made, "the employer bears the burden of production of evidence to refute the employee's showing." The leading case behind it is Stokes, Docket No. 132648, Michigan Supreme Court, decided 12 June 2008: "A claimant must do more than demonstrate that his work-related injury prevents him from performing a previous job."

On bad faith, Michigan gives a workers' compensation adjuster three shields. Kewin removes the extracontractual tort for breach of an insurance contract generally. MCL 418.131(2) extends employer exclusivity to the insurer itself — "'employer' includes the employer's insurer and a service agent to a self-insured employer" — so a delayed-benefits claim framed as a tort against the carrier meets exclusivity before it ever reaches Kewin. And Blackwell, Docket No. 106624, Michigan Supreme Court, decided 16 June 1998, narrows what survives to misfeasance, imposing liability "only in cases of misfeasance" and distinguishing "active misconduct and passive inaction." Applied there, a carrier "owes no duty to a claimant to conform the claimant's treatment to the recommendations of a physician to whom the carrier refers the claimant."

What replaced the tort is administrative: the $50-per-day penalty. That is the remedy the legislature substituted, and it is why the exposure on a slow Michigan workers' compensation file is a penalty computation rather than a jury verdict.

Coordination with no-fault runs one way, and workers' compensation is primary. MCL 500.3109(1): "Benefits provided or required to be provided under the laws of any state or the federal government shall be subtracted from the personal protection insurance benefits otherwise payable for the injury under this chapter." The verb is shall — it is a mandatory subtraction, not an election. An injured worker hurt in a work-related auto accident is a workers' compensation claim first, and PIP pays only the excess.

The reverse direction confirms it by omission. MCL 418.354(1)(a)–(f) reduces workers' compensation by 50% of social security old-age benefits, the after-tax amount of wage-continuation and disability plan payments, proportional disability where the employee contributed, employer-funded pension and retirement payments, proportional pension, and §401(a) profit-sharing. No-fault PIP is not on that list. Enumerating the six shows the coordination is one-directional, which is exactly what makes workers' compensation primary.

Read the Stamp, Read the History Line, and Read the Bulletin

Michigan is the best-stamped publisher this guide has worked with, and using it properly makes currency questions cheap.

The official Michigan Compiled Laws prints its own currency in the header of every page — currently "Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 20 of 2026." Few state publishers state their own currency that precisely.

And every section carries an exhaustive History line at its foot, in the form "History: 1956, Act 218, Eff. Jan. 1, 1957 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 294, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973 ;-- … ;-- Am. 2019, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019."

Put those two together and you get something rare: a section whose history line stops before 2025 is PROVED untouched by the last two sessions, rather than merely un-found. That makes a currency check on any Michigan section close to free.

⚠️ Read `Imd. Eff.` against `Eff.` in the history line. Michigan marks immediate effect there, and the 2019 no-fault acts carry it — "Am. 2019, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019." The distinction is inside the history line itself rather than in a separate effective-date section.

Free code reproductions are a year behind. The commercial reproduction relied on for much of the statutory text in this guide is stamped "2025 Michigan Compiled Laws," against the official PA 20 of 2026 — and its stamp varies by page depth, with one chapter index returning 2023 while its own section pages returned 2025. Read the stamp on the page you are relying on.

Three things move on their own schedule and must be checked rather than remembered:

The no-fault fee-schedule escalator. The January 1, 2019 baseline in MCL 500.3157(7) and (8) is adjusted annually by DIFS bulletin — currently +16.38%, effective 2 July 2026 to 1 July 2027 per Bulletin 2026-09-INS. The current figure is never in the statute.

The PSI cut scores and examination fee. Both are vendor policy with no statutory anchor, and the bulletin says so: "Cut scores … and content outlines are subject to change."

Pending legislation. HB 5980 of 2026 would amend MCL 500.3157; it was introduced 14 May 2026, referred to committee, and has not passed either chamber. It is not law and figures sourced to it must not be applied.

Quick Reference

Official Links