Case Name: LeBLANC v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-12-06
Citations: 87 Mich. App. 555
Docket Number: Docket No. 78-261
Parties: LeBLANC v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: Before: J. H. Gillis, P.J., and D. E. Holbrook and R. M. Maher, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 87
Pages: 555–560

Head Matter:
LeBLANC v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Docket No. 78-261.
Submitted October 3, 1978, at Escanaba.
Decided December 6, 1978.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Joseph LeBlanc was insured under a no-fault automobile insurance policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. He made a claim under his no-fault policy for personal injury benefits. He had also received Medicare payments for medical and hospital services. The no-fault policy contained a provision for the subtraction of government benefits which had been received. State Farm deducted the amount paid by Medicare from the benefits it paid. Mr. LeBlanc brought an action in Houghton Circuit Court to recover the deducted Medicare payments. Summary judgment for plaintiff, Stephen D. Condon, J. The court refused to award attorney fees to plaintiffs counsel. Defendant appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals. Held:
1. Under the no-fault automobile insurance statute an insurer is allowed to set off benefits payable against benefits received from a governmental source.
2. The insurer neither unreasonably delayed nor unreasonably refused to pay plaintiffs claim; therefore, no attorney fees may be charged under the no-fault act.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
D. E. Holbrook, J., dissented and would hold that the no-fault automobile insurance statute which allows an insurer to set off benefits against benefits received from an unrelated purchased medicare insurance policy from the government is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Opinion of the Court
1. Constitutional Law — Automobiles—No-Fault Insurance — Benefits — Set Offs — Statutes.
A section of the no-fault automobile insurance statute which allows an insurer to set off benefits payable against benefits received from a governmental source is constitutional (MCL 500.3109; MSA 24.13109).
References for Points in Headnotes
New Topic Service Am Jur 2d, No-Fault Insurance § 22.
New Topic Service Am Jur 2d, No-Fault Insurance § 7.
2. Automobiles — No-Fault Insurance — Benefits—Delay in Payment — Refusal to Pay — Attorney Fees.
Attorney fees may be charged under the no-fault act against an insurer in an action by a claimant for personal or property protection benefits which are overdue only upon a finding that the insurer unreasonably delayed or refused payment.
Dissent by D. E. Holbrook, J.
3. Constitutional Law — Automobiles—No-Fault Insurance — Benefits — Set Offs.
A section of the ¡no-fault automobile insurance act which allows an insurer to set off beneñts received from an unrelated purchased medicare insurance policy from the government is unreasonable and unconstitutional (MCL 500.3109[1]; MSA 24.13109[1]).
McLean & McCarthy, for plaintiff.
Weis & Cossi, P.C., for defendant.
Before: J. H. Gillis, P.J., and D. E. Holbrook and R. M. Maher, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an automobile no-fault insurance case wherein plaintiff sustained personal injuries and received Medicare payments with respect to medical and hospital services rendered therefor.
Plaintiff was insured under a no-fault automobile insurance policy issued by the defendant and he made a claim for personal protection benefits under that policy. The policy contained a provision for subtraction of government benefits, as mandated by MCL 500.3109; MSA 24.13109. Defendant therefore deducted the amount paid by Medicare from the benefits paid to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff brought this action on April 15, 1977, to recover the deducted Medicare amounts and was granted a summary judgment by the trial court on the authority of O'Donnell v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, 70 Mich App 487; 245 NW2d 801 (1976).
The trial court denied an award of attorney fees for plaintiff's counsel, finding no unreasonable refusal to pay benefits on behalf of the defendant. From that judgment defendant filed an appeal pursuant to GCR 1963, 806.1 and plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal pursuant to GCR 1963, 807.1.
We are aware of the split of authority in this Court with respect to the constitutionality of the government benefits deduction provision of the no-fault automobile insurance act. O'Donnell, supra, Wysocki v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 77 Mich App 565; 258 NW2d 561 (1977), and Pollock v Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co, 79 Mich App 218; 261 NW2d 554 (1977), have declared this provision of the act to be in violation of the constitutional standards of equal protection and due process.
On the other hand, the constitutionality of the provision has been upheld in Smart v Citizens Mutual Insurance Co, 83 Mich App 30; 268 NW2d 273 (1978), and Greene v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, 83 Mich App 505; 268 NW2d 703 (1978).
We find the latter cases more convincing and quote with approval from Judge Bashara's dissent in O'Donnell, supra, at 506-507:
"Under the statutory scheme everyone participating in no-fault is entitled to certain minimum benefits. The fact that some individuals are unable to purchase private insurance is of no moment. As long as everyone has an opportunity to enjoy a minimum statutory benefit, there is no absolute deprivation. Any discrimina tion that might exist is insufficient to justify invoking the Equal Protection Clause."
As to the trial court's refusal to award an attorney fee, we affirm. See Davidson v Johnson (On Rehearing), 79 Mich App 660, 666-667; 262 NW2d 887 (1977).
Reversed in part; affirmed in part. No costs, a public question being involved.