Opinion ID: 2228748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Duplicative Benefit Elimination

Text: If the legislative purpose of the statutory scheme before us is considered to involve the elimination of duplicative recovery, it is apparent that this permissible purpose is neither practically nor constitutionally realized by the  3109(1) classification matrix as the distinction in classes is based solely on the source from which the collateral compensation is paid. [21] Section 3109(1) irrationally permits the retention of duplicative no-fault and private insurance benefits by that class which has directly engaged such collateral, private insurance. Yet, it concurrently mandates the reduction of insurer-paid no-fault benefits by the amount of benefits likewise directly paid for by the no-fault insured yet fortuitously received under the auspices of a governmental program. We cannot sanction this irrational class differentiation. This finding of unconstitutionally disparate classification is further emphasized when one notes that  3109a, MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1), provides for an optional set-off of private, collateral insurance benefits at the election of the insured, while  3109(1) mandates such a set-off whether the governmental benefit recipient desires such a subtraction or not. There is no logic to support this difference in an attempt to eliminate duplicative recovery. [22]