Michigan UM/UIM Coverage: When Your Own Policy Pays (2026)

By Attorney Manny Chahal · Updated May 2026 · Reading time: ~9 min

After the 2019 No-Fault reforms (2019 PA 21 and 2019 PA 22), more Michigan drivers carry the new $50,000/$100,000 minimum bodily injury liability limits authorized by MCL 500.3009(5). When the at-fault driver’s policy can’t cover a serious injury — or when the driver has no insurance at all — uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on your own policy becomes the difference between full recovery and a partial one. This guide explains how UM and UIM work in 2026, the contractual rules that trap unwary claimants, and the deadlines that quietly end claims.

UM vs. UIM: Two Separate Promises From Your Own Insurer

Uninsured Motorist (UM) and Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage are first-party contract benefits. Unlike Personal Injury Protection (PIP), which the No-Fault Act mandates, UM and UIM are optional in Michigan. They are not mandated by the No-Fault statute, though UM/UIM damages are measured by the same tort rules the No-Fault Act establishes — including the MCL 500.3135 threshold and PIP coordination. They are governed by the policy language and by general contract law.

UM coverage applies when the at-fault driver had no liability insurance, when the driver fled (a hit-and-run with a phantom vehicle), or when the liability insurer is insolvent. UIM applies when the at-fault driver did have liability insurance, but the policy limits were too low to cover the harm. In each case, your own carrier stands in the shoes of the at-fault driver up to the UM/UIM limit you purchased.

Why UIM Matters More After the 2019 Reforms

Before 2019 PA 21 took effect on July 1, 2020, Michigan’s minimum bodily injury liability limit was $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident. The reform raised the default to $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident, but it also let drivers opt down to $50,000/$100,000 using a director-approved form. Many cost-conscious households selected the $50,000 floor.

That choice has consequences for crash victims. If a driver carrying $50,000 per person seriously injures someone whose surgical and lost-wage damages exceed the policy limit, the liability carrier tenders the $50,000 and walks away. Without UIM on the victim’s policy, the rest of the damages come out of personal assets — if the at-fault driver has any. For more on how the threshold for tort recovery interacts with this gap, see our prior guide on the serious impairment threshold after McCormick v Carrier.

The Three Traps That Defeat UM/UIM Claims

1. The Consent-to-Settle Clause

Almost every Michigan UIM endorsement requires the insured to obtain written consent from the UIM carrier before settling with the at-fault driver’s liability insurer. The reason is subrogation. When you release the tortfeasor, you destroy the UIM carrier’s right to recover what it pays you from the at-fault driver. Michigan courts have upheld these clauses as enforceable conditions on coverage; signing a tortfeasor release without UIM-carrier consent can void the UIM claim entirely. Some Michigan decisions, including DeFrain v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 491 Mich 359 (2012), evaluate consent-to-settle and similar policy conditions through a prejudice analysis — but the safer path is always to secure written consent before signing any release.

The practical workaround is the tender letter. Plaintiff’s counsel notifies the UIM carrier of the proposed liability settlement, encloses the offer, and gives the UIM carrier the policy-defined response window (typically 30 days under the endorsement) to either (a) consent, or (b) tender its own check matching the settlement amount and preserve subrogation against the at-fault driver. Most carriers consent rather than write the check.

2. The Contractually Shortened Limitations Period

By default, a contract claim in Michigan carries a six-year statute of limitations under MCL 600.5807(9). UM and UIM are contract claims, so the six-year period would seem to apply. But most Michigan auto policies impose a contractually shortened limitation — commonly one or three years — for UM/UIM lawsuits or arbitration demands. The Michigan Supreme Court enforced one such clause in Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457 (2005), holding that a one-year contractual limitation in an uninsured motorist policy was unambiguous and enforceable, even though it cut off the claim long before the statutory period would have.

3. The Setoff — What the UIM Carrier Subtracts

UIM coverage is gap coverage, not stacking coverage by default. If you carry $100,000 in UIM and the at-fault driver tenders $50,000 in liability limits, your UIM carrier usually owes the difference between your UIM limit and the liability payment — not the full $100,000 on top of the settlement. The Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed in Cole v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 272 Mich App 50 (2006), that UM/UIM endorsements are construed under ordinary contract principles, including setoff and offset provisions written into the policy. Some policies further offset PIP recoveries, workers’ compensation benefits, or settlements with other defendants.

How Much UM/UIM Should a Michigan Driver Carry?

This is a financial-planning question, not a legal one, but the trade-off is concrete. If you carry the $50,000/$100,000 statutory minimum on liability but stack $250,000/$500,000 in UM/UIM, you have protected your household against being hit by another minimum-limits driver. If you carry $250,000/$500,000 on liability but the legacy $20,000/$40,000 on UM/UIM, you are well-insured against suits but defenseless against a serious uninsured-driver crash. Most personal injury practitioners recommend that UM/UIM limits at least match liability limits. Some Michigan auto policies permit “stacking” of UM/UIM across multiple vehicles on the same declarations page when the policy language allows it; whether stacking applies depends entirely on the policy text.

Hit-and-Run: When the Phantom Vehicle Has UM Implications

If an unidentified driver causes the crash and leaves the scene, UM coverage on your own policy is the primary remedy. Most Michigan UM endorsements require some form of physical contact between the phantom vehicle and the insured’s vehicle to defeat fraud and witness-only claims. Read the contact requirement before assuming UM applies to a “ran-me-off-the-road” near-miss. If no UM is available, the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan under MCL 500.3172 remains the safety net for PIP, but the Plan does not pay third-party tort damages.

UM/UIM and the Tort Threshold

UM/UIM benefits are first-party contract benefits measured by tort damages — your own carrier pays under the policy, but the amount owed is calculated using the same tort rules that would apply against the at-fault driver. They are therefore subject to the Michigan tort threshold under MCL 500.3135: a claimant must show death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement to recover noneconomic damages. The McCormick test governs that inquiry. UM/UIM also reduces under MCL 600.6304 if the claimant bears comparative fault. For a full walkthrough of how comparative fault interacts with no-fault tort damages, see the discussion in our mini-tort property damage guide.

Frequently Asked Questions