Opinion ID: 1815228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: operation of the offset provision

Text: The plain language of § 3109 obliges the no-fault insurer to subtract from benefits payable under that statute other benefits which are required by law to be paid for the injury. In Mathis v Interstate Motor Freight System, 408 Mich 164, 183; 289 NW2d 708 (1980), we held that this statute applies in cases involving workers' compensation and no-fault benefits. The workers' compensation benefits are paid as a result of the same accident and duplicate in varying degrees the no-fault benefits otherwise due.... [T]his brings the workers' compensation benefits within the scope of § 3109(1). [408 Mich 187.] The offset statute, and this Court's application of it, reflect a determination that the workers' compensation system should be the primary insurer with respect to disabilities arising from an automobile accident at work. The responsibility for workers' compensation benefits rests first on the employer or workers' compensation insurer, and the amount of that payment is to be deducted from the liability of the personal protection insurance carrier. [408 Mich 183.] The decision to make the no-fault insurer only secondarily liable is premised on a belief that [b]ecause the first-party insurance proposed by the [no-fault] act was to be compulsory, it was important that the premiums to be charged by the insurance companies be maintained as low as possible. [ O'Donnell v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 404 Mich 524, 547; 273 NW2d 829 (1979).] One way to ensure lower premiums is `through the elimination of duplicative benefits recovery.' 404 Mich 545 (quoting from the dissent of WILLIAMS, J.). See also Tebo v Havlik, 418 Mich 350, 367; 343 NW2d 181 (1984) (In effect, the Legislature made a trade-off. Those who were required to participate in the no-fault scheme gave up the possibility of redundant recoveries, but they were intended to receive the benefit of lower insurance rates.).