BASHARA, P.J., dissenting and recommending remand
How later courts described this case
- BASHARA, P.J., dissenting and recommending remand
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
V. J. Brennan, J.
(concurring). I concur with Judge T. M. Burns’ opinion.
I see no corollary as to who gets what or is getting what from various sources, whether they be social security, stock dividends, insurance policies, etc., when it comes down to insurance benefits received as a result of injuries incurred from accidents.
The insurance companies successfully lobbied "no fault” 1 under the guise of necessary legislation which would inevitably greatly reduce insurance costs, which they could and would pass on to the public in the form of reduced policy premiums.
I have yet to see the lower premiums but have, unfortunately, on the contrary, seen increased premiums for the same coverage. These so-called savings have not been passed on to the public— and there are, no doubt, some savings present, as the insurance companies, under this provision, have picked up "Uncle Sam” and the state government as their partners in underwriting these policies.
Before "no fault” there was no reduction or subtraction in jury verdicts of amounts received *500 from social security or other state or Federal government benefits.
The provision reads:
"Benefits provided or required to be provided under the laws of any state or the federal government shall be subtracted from the personal protection insurance benefits otherwise payable for the injury.” MCLA 500.3109(1); MSA 24.13109(1).
From the way it reads one could conclude that all former state and Federal employees on retirement could have subtracted from their accident insurance proceeds the amount of their monthly pension.
Why the provision in the first place; is a person on social security more susceptible to accidents than one who is not? Is social security’s purpose to compensate our senior citizens for prospective accident cost needs? How about a deduction from the deduction in favor of the recipient for the contributions by the recipient into the social security fund over the many years before he or she became eligible for social security? These observations are bordering on the obscure, yet they could follow from the logic behind the present law.
As a matter of judgment I can find no reasonableness in this legislative classification.
I, too, would declare the set-off provision in the contract as void.
Personal and property protection and residual liability insurance act, MCLA 500.3101 through 500.3179; MSA 24.13101 through 24.13179.