Insurance Disputes & Denied Claims

When you pay for insurance, you expect protection — not resistance. Unfortunately, many insurers delay, underpay, or deny legitimate claims. Jonathon Homa represents clients whose insurance companies delay, deny, or underpay claims, including PIP disputes, UIM/UM denials, coverage-exclusion issues, and priority conflicts. He helps clients enforce their rights under Michigan insurance law and recover the benefits they are owed.

Common Types of Insurance Disputes

Insurance conflicts can arise under almost any policy type. JKH Law handles disputes involving:

Auto insurance — No-Fault (PIP) benefits, uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) motorist coverage, and liability disputes.

Homeowners and property claims — fire, storm, water, or vandalism damage.

Commercial and business insurance — business-interruption, general liability, and professional-liability policies.

Health and disability insurance — denial of necessary medical or disability benefits.

Life insurance and accidental-death benefits — coverage disputes, beneficiary challenges, and policy lapse issues.

Bad-faith claim handling — unreasonable delay, denial without investigation, or failure to pay undisputed amounts.

Insurance Disputes

Michigan Law on Insurance Duties

Michigan draws a sharp line between first-party and third-party insurance relationships. When you make a claim against your own insurer — for example, PIP, homeowners, or disability benefits — Michigan does not recognize an independent tort of bad-faith breach of an insurance contract; the Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed this in Burnside v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 208 Mich. App. 422 (1995). Extra-contractual remedies in that first-party setting are limited to breach of contract, statutory penalty interest, and — in extreme cases — intentional infliction of emotional distress. The calculus changes when an insurer is defending you against someone else’s claim: there, Michigan does recognize a bad-faith doctrine, discussed below.

First-Party vs. Third-Party Claims

  • First-Party Claims — involve disputes between you and your own insurer (e.g., PIP, homeowners, or disability claims).
  • Third-Party Claims — involve another person’s insurer, such as when you are injured by a negligent driver or property owner.

In the third-party context, Michigan law imposes a real duty on your insurer to protect you from a judgment exceeding your policy limits. Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Medical Protective Co., 426 Mich. 109 (1986), held that an insurer with exclusive control over defending and settling a claim is liable for the excess judgment if it refuses in bad faith to settle within policy limits. Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 426 Mich. 127 (1986), defined bad faith as something more than negligence but less than fraud — an arbitrary, reckless, indifferent, or intentional disregard of the insured’s interests, including failing to keep you informed, failing to pursue settlement when warranted, or rejecting a reasonable settlement offer. Under Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co. v. Keeley, 433 Mich. 525 (1989), an insurer that acts in bad faith owes the full excess judgment regardless of whether you personally have the ability to pay it — a doctrine the Michigan Supreme Court reaffirmed in J & J Farmer Leasing, Inc. v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America, 472 Mich. 353 (2005).

JKH Law handles both categories, ensuring you receive the full protection and compensation your policy provides.

What Constitutes Bad Faith Conduct

Examples of insurer misconduct may include:

  • Unreasonable delay or denial without explanation
  • Failing to conduct a proper investigation
  • Offering unreasonably low settlements
  • Misstating policy terms or coverage
  • Retaliating against insureds for asserting claims

If an insurer violates these duties, Michigan law provides real financial consequences. For overdue No-Fault PIP benefits, MCL 500.3142 imposes mandatory 12% annual interest the moment a payment is 30 days late, regardless of whether the insurer acted in good faith — a rule the Michigan Court of Appeals applied again in 2026 in Zielinski v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. MCL 500.3148 separately allows your attorney’s fees to be charged against the insurer, on top of your benefits, if a court finds the insurer unreasonably refused or delayed payment; under Bonkowski v. Allstate Insurance Co., 281 Mich. App. 154 (2008), a delay is only excused if it rested on a legitimate question of law or genuine factual uncertainty — not simply because the insurer was later proven right to have doubts.

For homeowners, life, disability, and other non-auto first-party claims, the Uniform Trade Practices Act provides a parallel remedy: MCL 500.2006 entitles you to 12% interest on a claim not paid on a timely basis, which the Michigan Supreme Court confirmed in Nickola v. MIC General Insurance Co., 500 Mich. 115 (2017), applies without your having to prove the insurer’s liability wasn’t reasonably in dispute. MCL 500.2026 separately lists the specific practices that count as unfair claims handling, including failing to investigate a claim reasonably and failing to attempt a prompt, fair settlement once liability is clear.

denied, insurance, rejected, stamp, document, paperwork, deny, denial, no, denied, denied, denied, denied, denied, insurance

Deadlines for Insurance Claims

A breach-of-contract claim against your insurer generally must be filed within six years under MCL 600.5807(9) — but that statutory period is only a backstop. In Rory v. Continental Insurance Co., 473 Mich. 457 (2005), the Michigan Supreme Court held that a policy’s own suit-limitation clause, often shortening that window to just one or two years, is enforced exactly as written and displaces the six-year default unless you can show the insurer waived the clause or is estopped from relying on it. The same policy-language rules cut in your favor elsewhere: Michigan courts read unambiguous policy terms as written, but construe genuinely ambiguous language against the insurer that drafted it. Because these shortened deadlines are common and easy to miss, reviewing your policy’s actual limitation period as soon as a dispute arises is critical.

Our Approach to Insurance Litigation

  • Policy Analysis – Reviewing every clause, exclusion, and endorsement for coverage.
  • Coverage Opinion & Demand – Providing a detailed legal position to prompt payment.
  • Litigation – Filing suit for breach of contract and statutory penalties when necessary.
  • Negotiation & Settlement – Pursuing fair outcomes without needless delay or expense.

Our goal is simple: to enforce your rights and restore the protection you paid for. We provide direct, responsive representation focused on results — not red tape.

If your insurance claim has been denied, delayed, or undervalued, contact JKH Law for a confidential consultation.

We’ll review your policy, evaluate your claim, and help you pursue the compensation you deserve.