Well there are a couple of issues here. Firstly, let me say that I know New York law, and New York is a No-fault state, however the laws are different even in no-fault states, however, they should be substantially similar. Secondly, let me correct some misinformation in some of the earlier responses.

No-fault has absolutely nothing to do with paying for damage to a vehicle. "No fault" coverage refers personal injury protection (aka PIP) and providing first party benefits to those hurt in an accident. The reason they call it "no fault" is actually the opposite of what everyone is talking about. It refers to the fact that in an auto accident, everyone's medical treatment is paid for REGARDLESS of who was at fault (with certain exceptions such as drunk driving, motorcycles, etc.). So as far as no-fault benefits go, a determination of fault is immaterial.

Assuming that you are attempting to have medical benefits paid for, your problem is the fact that the no fault benefits you receive after an accident are through YOUR OWN policy. Now you don't have a policy, so therein lies the problem. It is unfortunate that I am not familiar with specific Michigan Law, however I will tell you what happens in New York, and it may help you as to where you should inquire.

In New York, if you are in an uninsured vehicle and get hurt in an accident, you apply to the State Insurance Fund, MVAIC (motor vehicle accident indemnification corporation) to receive benefits. That may be an avenue of recovery. In some instances, you may also be able to recover through the no-fault policy of someone living in the same household.

I will address the issue of liability coverage and the duty to pay for damage to your car later today or tommorrow. I just got a call I have to take.

As far as liability goes, most of the previous answers are right on. It SHOULD be the responsibility of her insurance company to pay for the damages to your car. (in the abscence of some wacky my law that punishes uninsured drivers...however I think that is unlikely). Call them immediately. The only drawback you are going to see between talking to them yourself as opposed to through your insurer is that they are going to screw you (assign 5-10% of fault to you) and you are going to grin and take it because it's cheaper then fighting them on it.

As far as I understand, in the event of a rear end collision, the one doing the hitting is usually considered 100% at fault.

Usually yes. In NY, there is a prima facie assumption of negligence on the part of the driver who rear ends someone. Prima facie is a Latin term which in this context basically means that the dirvier in front has proven his case by the mere fact that he was hit in the rear. The effect of this is a burden shift to the defendant. Normally in civil lawsuits, the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. In a rear end hit case, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a non-negligent explanation for the collision. The defense is always the same. "The Plaintiff stopped short." But it doesn't work very often. There are a few other viable defenses and mitigating factors which occasionally find success. Examples are "the emergency defense" (sudden intervening cause such as a deer jumping into the road) or the sun glare defense(more of a mitigating factor then a complete defense.

Well I called her insurance company and told them that they had to pay for the damages but I was told that I could only claim for a 'mini-tort' and was told that it would only reimburse me for my deductible if it was unwaivable because Michigan is a No-Fault state and each driver is responsible to go back to their own insurance company. Is she right? Sorry, I am just wanting to learn more information since it's costing about $5000 to fix the damages

I found this site:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ci...gd_25094_7.pdf
Which had this to say.

“Mini-Tort” Limited Property Damage

Liability Insurance