THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956
Act 218 of 1956
500.2016 Unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in business of insurance; applicability of section.
Sec. 2016.
(1) In addition to other provisions of law, the following practices as applied to worker's compensation insurance including worker's compensation coverage provided through a self-insurer's group are defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance:
(a) As a condition of receiving a dividend for the current or a previous year, requiring an insured to renew or maintain worker's compensation insurance with the insurer beyond the current policy's expiration date or requiring a member to continue participation with a worker's compensation self-insurer group.
(b) As a condition of obtaining worker's compensation insurance, requiring a premium deposit greater than 25% of the total projected annual premium or $2,500.00, whichever is greater.
(c) As a condition of obtaining worker's compensation insurance, requiring the purchase of any other form of insurance from the same insurer.
(d) As the result of a payroll audit or examination, requiring the payment of an increased premium increment within 30 days of written notification of the increase in premium.
(2) This section does not apply if the insured was guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, or other acts of bad faith.
(3) This section also applies to worker's compensation self-insurers' groups.
History: Add. 1982, Act 7, Eff. Jan. 1, 1983 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 457, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 1999
PopularName Notes:
Act 218
Notes of Decisions
Health Care Ass'n Workers Comp. Fund v. Dir. of the Bureau of Worker's Comp., 694 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 45× “Plaintiff Health Care Association Workers Compensation Fund, a worker’s compensation self-insurer group, brought this suit to challenge the constitutionality of a portion of MCL 500.2016. 1 Specifically, plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the addition of language to…”
Cnty. Of Ingham V Mi Cnty. Road Comm'n Self-Ins. Pool (Mich. 2021).
· cites it 7× “Because the Pool was neither a workers’ compensation insurer nor in the insurance business, MCL 500.2016 is not a “definite indication in the law” prohibiting the Pool’s exclusion of former members from surplus distributions.”
Cnty. of Ingham v. Mi Cnty. Road Comm'n Self-Ins. Pool (Mich. 2021).
· cites it 7× “Because the Pool was neither a workers’ compensation insurer nor in the insurance business, MCL 500.2016 is not a “definite indication in the law” prohibiting the Pool’s exclusion of former members from surplus distributions.”
Cnty. of Ingham v. Mi Cnty. Road Comm'n Self-Ins. Pool (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“MCL 500.2016 provides: (1) In addition to other provisions of law, the following practices as applied to worker’s compensation insurance including worker’s compensation coverage provided through a self-insurer’s group are defined as unfair methods of -14- competition and unfair…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2016(1) — 2 cases
Cnty. Of Ingham V Mi Cnty. Road Comm'n Self-Ins. Pool (Mich. 2021).
“Because the Pool was neither a workers’ compensation insurer nor in the insurance business, MCL 500.2016 is not a “definite indication in the law” prohibiting the Pool’s exclusion of former members from surplus distributions.”
Cnty. of Ingham v. Mi Cnty. Road Comm'n Self-Ins. Pool (Mich. 2021).
“Because the Pool was neither a workers’ compensation insurer nor in the insurance business, MCL 500.2016 is not a “definite indication in the law” prohibiting the Pool’s exclusion of former members from surplus distributions.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2016(1)(a) — 3 cases
Health Care Ass'n Workers Comp. Fund v. Dir. of the Bureau of Worker's Comp., 694 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“Plaintiff Health Care Association Workers Compensation Fund, a worker’s compensation self-insurer group, brought this suit to challenge the constitutionality of a portion of MCL 500.2016. 1 Specifically, plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the addition of language to…”
Cnty. Of Ingham V Mi Cnty. Road Comm'n Self-Ins. Pool (Mich. 2021).
“Because the Pool was neither a workers’ compensation insurer nor in the insurance business, MCL 500.2016 is not a “definite indication in the law” prohibiting the Pool’s exclusion of former members from surplus distributions.”
Cnty. of Ingham v. Mi Cnty. Road Comm'n Self-Ins. Pool (Mich. 2021).
“Because the Pool was neither a workers’ compensation insurer nor in the insurance business, MCL 500.2016 is not a “definite indication in the law” prohibiting the Pool’s exclusion of former members from surplus distributions.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2016(l)(a) — 1 case
Health Care Ass'n Workers Comp. Fund v. Dir. of the Bureau of Worker's Comp., 694 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“Plaintiff Health Care Association Workers Compensation Fund, a worker’s compensation self-insurer group, brought this suit to challenge the constitutionality of a portion of MCL 500.2016. 1 Specifically, plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the addition of language to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.