A legal and public relations battle between Michigan auto accident attorney Steven Gursten and CURE Auto Insurance has gotten ugly after the New Jersey-based insurer filed its second lawsuit against Gursten and his law firm, Michigan Auto Law.
The dispute stems from Gursten’s outspoken criticism of CURE’s business practices, which he has highlighted in blog posts, billboards, and a dedicated website.
The feud began earlier this year when Gursten published a blog post on September 16, titled, “Is CURE Auto Insurance Good in Michigan?” The post alleged troubling practices by CURE, including high complaint ratios, policy rescissions, and inadequate insurance coverage recommendations that could leave drivers financially exposed.
Gursten’s blog post prompted a cease-and-desist letter from CURE’s lawyers, demanding its removal. Gursten, whose insurance company is based in Farmington Hills, refused and instead fired back with a letter of his own, vowing to defend himself and expose what he called the “shocking truth of what CURE is doing in Michigan.”
CURE initially filed a defamation lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court in late August, which was dismissed in November. Just days later, CURE refiled its case in federal court, expanding its claims to include allegations of defamation and trademark infringement. The federal lawsuit also targets a website Gursten launched, whenCUREwontpay.com, and a series of billboards critical of the company.
Gursten isn’t backing down. For him, this case represents more than a professional dispute — it's a fight over free speech and consumer rights.
“We stand by every word on the blog post, website, and billboards, and we will defend our First Amendment right to speak out on matters of public concern such as this, which involve consumer advocacy and protecting the public,” Gursten said in a statement. “We are speaking out in order to provide honest and accurate information about CURE Auto Insurance and its practices under Michigan’s No-Fault insurance laws. We believe that providing transparent, fact-based information to consumers is essential in helping them make informed decisions about their auto insurance and so they can better protect themselves and their loved ones.”
The new lawsuit seeks an injunction to remove Gursten’s blog post, website, and billboards. It also demands damages for what CURE alleges is a coordinated smear campaign designed to harm the insurer’s reputation and business.
After CURE’s initial lawsuit, Gursten escalated his criticism with a new website and billboard campaign. The site, whenCUREwontpay.com, details allegations of high complaint rates, policy cancellations, and claims denials. The billboards, which mimic CURE’s branding — with a twist — highlight complaint data from the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services (DIFS), stating, “Cure Ins. is the 20th largest in MI, but 3rd in complaints?”
Gursten argues that his information is factual, citing data from DIFS and sworn testimony from a CURE representative. He says the campaign is an effort to inform consumers about the risks of choosing CURE as their insurer, particularly in the wake of Michigan’s 2019 no-fault insurance reforms.
CURE insures more than 90,000 vehicles and has positioned itself as a low-cost option for drivers, particularly in Detroit. The company does not use credit scores to determine rates, a factor that has made it popular among Detroit residents, who have historically faced some of the highest insurance rates in the country.
The conflict highlights the broader tension surrounding Michigan’s no-fault insurance reforms. The changes, which allowed drivers to choose lower levels of personal injury protection (PIP) coverage, have reduced premiums for many but also led to concerns about underinsurance. Critics like Gursten argue that insurers such as CURE exploit the reforms to sell inadequate coverage, leaving drivers vulnerable after serious accidents.
CURE, on the other hand, has countered that it's helping make insurance more affordable for Michigan drivers who were previously priced out of the market.
The federal case is ongoing, with significant implications for both sides. For CURE, it could shape its reputation and growth in Michigan. For Gursten, it's a test of his First Amendment rights and commitment to consumer advocacy in the face of legal threats.
