Court Opinion

ID: 9664122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:03:38.724701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:02.281636
License: Public Domain

Blair Moody, Jr., J.
(concurring in the results). In O’Donnell v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 404 Mich 524; 273 NW2d 829 (1979), it was my judgment that § 3109(1) of the Michigan no-fault insurance act was unconstitutional.
In my view, § 3109(1) creates an elitist, unreasonable and arbitrary classification permitting those who can afford private insurance to supplement no-fault benefits the luxury of duplicative recovery while denying parallel benefits to the many similarly situated insureds whose economic circumstances require sole reliance on governmental sources to which they may have contributed.
However, it must be acknowledged that the O’Donnell majority concluded that § 3109(1) is free from constitutional infirmity. Further, O’Donnell is held to control the constitutional question presented in these cases.
Aside from the constitutional issue, significant questions were left unanswered in O’Donnell. These questions, which were unnecessary to the decision in O’Donnell, concerned the scope and type of benefits which may be subtracted from no-*190fault personal protection insurance benefits. Indeed, issues regarding which governmental benefits may be deducted from no-fault benefits still remain largely unaddressed.
In these cases we deal with workers’ compensation benefits which are provided without direct cost to the employee. The legislative history, as studiously outlined by Justice Kavanagh, indicates an intent that workers’ compensation benefits be deducted from personal protection insurance benefits when both benefits are payable for an injury. Therefore, allowing set-off of these government benefits comports with legislative intent.
Additionally, under the facts of the instant cases, the workers’ compensation benefits and the personal protection insurance benefits are clearly "payable for the injury” within the meaning of § 3109(1). The right to receive workers’ compensation benefits arises out of the same circumstances which make the recipient eligible to receive personal protection insurance benefits. Further, both benefits are payable to compensate the recipient for the same economic injuries suffered as a result of the accident.
As to the resolution of other issues raised in these cases, I agree with the analysis employed by Justice Kavanagh. For the foregoing reasons, I concur in the results reached.