Michigan House Bill HB5299

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/13/25
• Refer: 11/13/25
• Report Pass: 12/17/25
• Engrossed: 2/24/26
• Refer: 2/26/26

Caption

Insurance: no-fault; personal protection insurance benefits; revise definitions in section because of other amendments. Amends sec. 3107c of 1956 PA 218 (MCL 500.3107c). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5298'25

Impact

By redefining the qualifications for selecting coverage limits, the bill potentially broadens access to insurance benefits for lower-income individuals or families depending on Medicaid. This amendment is seen as a critical measure that aligns with the state's ongoing efforts to regulate personal insurance more effectively, ensuring consumers have clear options related to personal protection benefits. One notable aspect is its implications for transportation network companies, where specific coverage provisions apply, addressing the needs of rideshare drivers and their passengers during insurance policy selection.

Summary

House Bill 5299 is an amendment to Michigan's insurance code established in 1956, specifically targeting personal protection insurance benefits. The bill revises section 3107c to outline the selection of coverage levels for individuals applying for or renewing insurance policies which must provide the security required under section 3101(1). It establishes various coverage selection limits, with the lowest being $50,000 and others up to unlimited coverage, contingent on certain criteria related to Medicaid enrollment. This ensures that applicants and their relatives receive adequate coverage, which is particularly important in the context of personal injury protection following vehicular incidents.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 5299 appears generally positive, emphasizing the need for clarity and accessibility in insurance coverage for personal protection. Stakeholders in the insurance industry and consumer advocacy groups largely endorse the changes, viewing them as a means to enhance consumer rights while providing essential protections. However, there remains a concern about the broader financial implications for insurance companies, as the adjustments to coverage levels might affect premium rates and market stability over time.

Contention

There are notable points of contention regarding the bill's specifics, particularly the structured limits for personal protection benefits which some argue may not adequately meet the needs of Michiganders involved in severe accidents. Critics may express concern that while the new limits elevate protection for some individuals, they could also lead to increased premiums or insufficient coverage for others who do not qualify for the lowest limits, potentially leaving gaps in protection. The interplay of these factors is likely to remain a focal point in discussions surrounding the bill.