*1 State Farm Ins 1976] FARM O’DONNELL STATE MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Opinion of the Court Statutes—Legislative 1. Constitutional Law — Classifications— Presumptions. valid, Legislative presumed should be classification since the Legislature distinguishing has broad discretion between different classes. Statutes—Legislative 2. Constitutional Law — Classifications. Legislative arbitrary, must be classification reasonable it germane object legislation must be to the and uniform in operation upon persons naturally its class to it all applies. 3. Insurance —Automobiles—No Fault —Statutes. purpose compensa-
The basic of the no-fault act is to insure the (MCLA persons injured tion of in automobile accidents 500.3101 seq.: seq.). et MSA 24.13101 et 4. Insurance —Automobiles—No Fault —Statutes—Constitu- tional Law.
The section the no-fault act which reduces no-fault benefits [2, [I] [3] [4-10, [II] [12] [13] [17] [19, [22] [15] [14] [21] 5 Am Jur 18, Am Jur 2d New 16 Am Jur 73 Am Jur 20, 25, ance §§ 73 Am Jur 73 Am Jur 4 Am Jur 70 Am Jur 559. 16 Am Jur 16 Am Jur 16 Am 23] 16, 24, 16 Am Jur Jur 12, 13. 2d, 26, 2d, 2d, 16 Am Jur 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d, References 2d, Appeal Appeal 28] Constitutional Law Summary Judgment Summary Social Constitutional Law 504. Constitutional Law Summary Judgment Constitutional Law Topic 2d, Am and Error §§ Constitutional Law Service, Security and Error 2d, Jur Judgment Constitutional 2d New Points No-Fault Insurance 14. and Medicare 4. §§ 873, §§ § §§ 13, Topic §§ in Headnotes § §§ §§ 137, 874. 554, 555, 557, 26. 485, 491, 14. 20, 2, Law §§ 143. 4. Service, 36. 496-501, §§ 527, No-Fault Insur- § 559. 554, 555, 551. 491, 527. 557, App 487 any compensation paid state or Federal law but by private patently unreasonable insurance benefits (MCLA500.3109[1]; 24.13109[1]). discriminatory *2 Insurance—Legislative 5. Constitutional Law — Classifications Arbitrary n — Classifications. proper legisla- A is a reduction in the cost of insurance basis for however, classification, jus- tive reduction does not such alone tify arbitrary legislative essentially an classification. Policy 6. Insurance —Constitutional Law — Exclusions —Valid- ity. Policy against public policy they exclusions are invalid and where recovery by paid an reduce insured’s amounts out of workmen’s compensation disability funds or under benefit laws. Law—Insurance—Automobiles—No Fault— 7. Constitutional Statutes.
A section of the no-fault act is unconstitutional where it allows personal protection plus private benefits insurance benefits to group, personal protection any- one but deducts from benefits thing government program; legiti- from a there is no received purpose establishing mate such a distinction which arbitrar- ily against governmen- discriminates those who receive certain (MCLA500.3109[1]; 24.13109[1]). tal benefits MSA Law—No Fault —Automobiles— 8. Insurance —Constitutional Statutes. arbitrary application
A section of the no-fault act is in its where supplement those who can afford insurance to no-fault duplicative recovery benefits are allowed to receive while those (MCLA duplicative recovery who cannot afford such are denied 500.3109[1]; 24.13109[1]). MSA Policy Support by 9. Insurance —Set-Off Provisions —Public — Statute. provision A set-off in an insurance contract is void where it is patently public policy supported by offensive to and is not covering provisions. sanction of a valid statute such Brennan, Concurrence V. J. J.
10. Constitutional Law —Reasonableness—Insurance—Automo- Legislature—Classifications—Statutes. biles—No Fault —
There is no reasonableness in the classification con- Farm State Ins whereby provided required act tained the no-fault provided to be under the laws of state or the Federal government personal protection from the shall subtracted (MCLA payable injury insurance benefits otherwise for the 500.3109[1]; 24.13109[1]). by Bashara, P. J. Judgment Summary Judgment 11. — —Court Rules. summary judgment brought
A motion for under the court rule regarding summary judgments merely legal sufficiency tests (GCR pleadings of the claim as determined from alone 1963, 117.2[1]). Judgment Summary Judgment Assumption 12. — — of Truth.
Every well-pled allegation complaint in the is assumed to be true summary judgment when a motion for is considered at the trial appellate or reviewed at an level. Judgment Summary Judgment 13. — —Test for Motion. summary judgment
The test for a motion for is whether the plaintiff’s claim, pleadings, clearly on the is so unenforceable as *3 development a matter of possibly law that no factual can justify right recovery. a to 14. Constitutional Law —State Actions. proscriptions apply of the Fourteenth Amendment to actions (US merely private Const, of the state not conduct Am XIV). Equal
15. Constitutional Law —Due Protection. Process — applies legislation The Fourteenth Amendment to all state (US impairs process equal protection Const, due or denies Am XIV). 16. Constitutional Law —State Action —Insurance—No-Fault Re- covery —Statutes.
It is state action where an insurance contract reduces no-fault recovery by by amounts received the insured from state or government programs, Federal where the reduction is based (MCLA upon Legislature a statute enacted a state 500.3109[1J; 24.13109[1]). Appellate 17. Constitutional Law — Review. Appellate questions courts should not decide constitutional not passed upon by the trial court. App Legislative Classifications. 18. Constitutional Law — reasonable, arbitrary, so must be A classification similarly alike. are treated persons situated that all Equal Protection. 19. Constitutional Law — deny power a state Equal Clause does Protection (US Const, ways persons in different classes of treat different XIV). Am Discrimination. 20. Constitutional Law —Gross treating things lie in can sometimes Gross discrimination exactly though they alike. are are different as Imperfect Equal Classifi- Protection — 21. Constitutional Law — cations —Statutes. welfare, a state does not and social the area of economics In merely Equal because the classifi- Clause Protection violate the imperfect; if it has some reasona- are made its laws cations simply because the the Constitution ble basis it does not offend nicety or because with mathematical not made classification is XIV). (US Const, inequality Am practice results in some it Security Pol- Welfare —Insurance—Public and Public 22. Social Compensation. icy —Minimum programs, governmental security such as other as well as Social compensation, fill a void not ade- are intended to workmen’s insurance; pro- by private quately these covered statutory grams part scheme established as of an overall compensation provide public policy minimum matter pro- qualifying persons for benefits under all otherwise grams. Basis —Classifica- Law —Statutes—Rational 23. Constitutional Pro- Insurance tions —Private Insurance —Government grams. persons distinguishing who between basis exists for A rational private receive and those who from receive benefits designed government programs to fill a void not from adequately insurance. covered *4 Law —Statutes—Classifications—Insurance— 24. Constitutional Basis —Reduced Costs of Govern- Automobiles —Rational Programs. ment rationally of no- Legislature conclude that a reduction can The public proceeds receives to the extent that one fault duplicate recovery and reduce costs. eliminate would State Farm Ins O’Donnell Equal 25. Constitutional Protection. Law — Equal preclude does not a Protection Clause state from taking addressing step phase one at a time and itself to the problem neglecting that seems most acute while other XIV). (US Const, phases problem Am Insurance—Automobiles—Appeals— 26. Constitutional Law — Scope Appeals of Review for Court. Appeals reviewing Court of limited function its as Legislature court need not consider whether the should have gone Legislature rationally further where the has concluded proceeds that a reduction of no-fault to the extent one receives public duplicate recovery beneñts would eliminate and reduce costs. 27. Constitutional Law —Discrimination—Classes Discriminated Against Inability Pay. — to against by The common characteristics of classes discriminated (1) inability pay money their to are: because of their lack they completely pay beneñt, unable to for some desired (2) consequence, they deprivation aas an absolute sustain of a meaningful opportunity enjoy to that beneñt. 28. Constitutional Law —Discrimination—Classes Discriminated Against Inability Pay — to —Insurance—Automobiles—No Fault —Private Insurance. against by inability pay There is no class discriminated an to statutory every- under the scheme of no-fault insurance since participating beneñts; one is entitled to certain minimum as long everyone opportunity enjoy has an a minimum beneñt, statutory deprivation, there is no absolute and the fact purchase that some individuals are unable insurance is of no moment. Washtenaw,
Appeal
from
Campbell,
Ross W.
J.
(Docket
9, 1976,
Submitted March
at Detroit.
No.
25429.)
August
Decided
1976. Leave to appeal
granted,
Complaint and her children, Kathleen A. O’Donnell, B. Michael O’Donnell, O’Donnell, H. Timothy against Farm Mutual State Automobile Insurance Com- pany alleging breach an contract and challenging constitutionality of a section of the *5 App 487 Opinion Court provides for deduction of no-fault act which personal protec- from benefits by provided the act. Sum- tion insurance mary judgment appeal. Plaintiffs for defendant. entry judgment of for for Reversed and remanded plaintiffs. Logeman), (by E. for & Robert Calder Kirkendall plaintiffs. Kantor), Allyn (by D. for
DeVine DeVine & defendant. J., J. P. and V. Brennan and
Before: T. M. JJ. Burns, and chil-
T. M. Plaintiffs are wife J. Burns, fatally injured Gary O’Donnell, who was dren of was cov- Mr. O’Donnell an automobile accident. policy by insurance a no-fault automobile ered issued depen- plaintiffs defendant, purposes of for survivor’s loss dents decedent benefits. policy provided that
Decedent’s would not exceed maximum loss benefits survivor’s period per 30-day $1,000 the amount company payable re- the insurance would paid payable to or the survivors duced amounts state or federal law. under the maximum benefits Plaintiffs were entitled to 30-day period per years $1,000 after of decedent’s three permitted by act, death as the no-fault monthly 500.3108; MSA 24.13108. From the MCLA amount, however, defendant maximum benefits plaintiffs $560, in social the sum received deducted pursu- security This was made benefits. deduction 24.13109(1), 500.3109(1); MCLA ant to provides as follows: Farm Ins v State Opinion the Court required provided provided "Benefits to be government
the laws of any or the federal state shall be personal protection subtracted from the insurance bene- payable injury.” fits otherwise per Plaintiffs thus received month $440 instead per figure $1,000 month set out in the *6 policy. complaint alleg- Plaintiffs filed a in circuit court ing the defendant breached the insurance contract paying per $1,000 the full month in bene- sought rights fits. Plaintiffs also a declaration of constitutionality relative to § of 3109 of the no- for the deduction of provides act, fault personal protec- benefits from the tion insurance benefits. summary judgment,
Defendant filed a motion for alleging plaintiffs upon that failed to state a claim granted which relief be could in that the reduction policy compliance of benefits under the inwas with state law. Defendant also asserted that policy private par- constituted a contract between that, ties and since no involved, state action was no claim of constitutional violation could be main- tained. granted
The trial court defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The order stated that complaint failed to state a cause of action for the any provision reasons no that breach of alleged, contract was plying defendant, and that in com- engaged act, with no-fault was not in and, therefore, state action claim that sup- contract itself was unconstitutional was not ported as a matter of law. appeal, plaintiffs argue
On that court the trial reversibly granting summary judgment erred contend that 3109 of the no-fault act unconstitutional. App 487 op Opinion the Court
I 500.3109(1); argued MCLA It 24.13109(1) guaran- equal protection violates Michigan Constitutions. This tees of the U.S. and recently the standard for Court has enunciated legislation so defective. to be See claimed review App Attorney General, 355; Shavers (1975). Bank & Trust vCo Cf. Manistee NW2d McGowan 394 Mich NW2d 636 Security Employment Commission, 379 Fox v and Mich 153 NW2d legislative Generally, should classification be Legislature presumed valid, has broad dis- as the distinguishing different classes. between cretion experiment Legislature free to with- must be "The nicety’ being required 'mathematical out to attain and eco- in its formulation of remedies social problems”. Bank & Trust Co v nomic Manistee supra, McGowan, at 680. But classifica- arbitrary unreasonable, it must tion *7 legislation, germane object of the to the must operation upon it uniform in its and must be made naturally persons the which it all of class to Security Employment applies. Commission, Fox v supra. scrutiny applied the test "Even under minimum legislation challenged equal pro- on
when innovative grounds, legislation the must be examined to see tection reasonable, and rea- if classifications are bear some its legislation. relationship the of object sonable While it legislative judiciary’s second-guess not task to speculate possibility of or to on the wisdom line-drawing by Legislature, precise the deci- more sion on reasonableness cannot be Shavers avoided.” General, Attorney supra at 369. challenge Attorney of General In the Shavers Farm v State Ins Opinion of the Court Judge Wayne act, the no-fault Gilmore of the 3109(1) County § Circuit Court found that violates equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Michi- gan Constitutions. In this Court’s decision in Shav- ruling question ers, we vacated that because the properly justiciable. was not In case, the instant squarely however, we are faced with a "case of concerning controversy” validity actual 3109(1). § 3109(1) § The effect of tois reduce no-fault bene- by any compensation paid fits state or compensation laws, Federal such as workmen’s security Thus, and social ery benefits. no-fault recov- by governmental is reduced collateral sources by any private but insurance sources. The purpose compensa- basic of no-fault is to insure persons injured tion of in automobile accidents. 3109(1) § But the effect of is to allow both no-fault private benefits and insurance benefits to those yet insurance, who have such it reduces by any no-fault benefits benefits received under a governmental program. Thus, those who have no private insurance or who cannot afford such insur- ance receive fewer because that fact. patently We find this section to be unreasonable discriminatory. and 3109(1)
Presumably, purpose of is to reduce program by the overall cost of the no-fault elimi nating. duplicative recovery. If the insurer has to pay charge recognized less, he can less. As Shavers, the reduction of the cost of insurance is a proper pro classification, basis for problem hibitive cost was that needed solution. problem permit But the fact that a arbitrary exists it does solving assuming means *8 3109(1) savings costs, § does reduce such alone do justify essentially arbitrary an classification. App 487 70 496 op Opinion Court the McGowan, supra, Trust Co at Manistee Bank & 478; 283 Howlett, 51 Ill 2d NE2d 677. Cf. Grace v 3109(1) covers any broad —it very Section is systems No-fault source. governmental collateral source collateral set-off in states include other Florida, example, in Illinois and provisions, but to only workmen’s provisions apply the set-off argued that the might It compensation benefits. provision is reasonable be type of latter set-off compensation the workmen’s benefits cause beneficiary, cost to the while provided without are not.1 Cf. source benefits private collateral Howlett, Underwood, supra, Grace v Justice Chief argument persuasive. is Section dissenting. The 3109(1), however, is not limited to to beneficiary. without cost the provided benefits of requires recovery the reduction provision very sense by "paid benefits which are in a real "insured”, as under social secu for” such by nature of em rity, or benefits which are and vete ployee government employees benefits to beneficiary’s no-fault bene rans.2 In this case Act, workmen’s Florida 9, unconstitutional workmen’s purpose ered private benefits. legitimate purpose being son What But This In Richardson v is purpose (Fla, an the Court’s in the the U.S. Supreme insurance or type served invidious classification because legitimate 1974). compensation compensation provides of case person no-fault Supreme Court 3109(1) Court. as implicit a set-off at Belcher, about making from tort also bar, grave set-off is to Lasky v served holding benefits benefits and provision, receiving that? It prevent duplicative recovery reduction an provision claim held State Farm Insurance US that as arbitrary received) doubts exist as to the set-off that workmen’s is asserted awards. disability compensation from (reducing 92 S inapplicable provision long § 224 of the Social social has been discrimination provision. Ct Significant compensation, there is no-fault benefits security disability will not be consid- 30 Ed 2d upheld by the presence of a It Co, recipients L of benefits. legitimate 296 So provision said Richard- Security between is not that 2d *9 497 Farm Ins v State op Opinion the Court by are fits insurance reduced the private paid by insured but not has paid. he has While this raises a funda (see process e.g., Flemming mental due issue Nestor, (1960), 603; 80 L 1367; 363 US S Ct 4 Ed 2d 1435 3101(1) principal
the evil of is its arbi application. trary Those who can afford supplement per insurance to no-fault benefits are duplicative recovery mitted while those who can duplicative recovery. not afford such are denied analogous problem An has existed under systems. uninsured motorist Courts have held that policy reducing recovery by an exclusions insured’s paid compensation amounts out of workmen’s disability funds or under benefit laws are invalid against public e.g., policy. See Allied Mutual App Larriva, Insurance Co v 19 Ariz 507 P2d 3 (1973). 997 In Travelers Insurance Co v National Property Casualty Co, Farmers Union & 252 Ark (1972), 624, 632; 480 SW2d the court stated: right by "The NFU claimed would sim [the insurer] ply provide it with a windfall the case of one covered
by compensation purpose workmen’s laws. The protect the Uninsured insured, Motorist Act was to not the insurer.”4 App Jacobs,
In Bowser NW2d 110 this Court was concerned with constitutionality of a section of the Motor prevented Vehicle Accident Claims Act which coverage, reduces cost no-fault but there a hint of has been proof presented experience, prove. only by personal to this Court to so Aided one inclined to conclude the "lowered” costs illusory. point. 24 ALR3d 1353 covers the entirely as, may presumably, "windfall” claim The correct provision setting has set-off insurer considered the its rates. App 70 Opinion Court of the compensation from those covered workmen’s plaintiffs recovering were in- the Act. employment, by jured their while in the course They received workmen’s uninsured motorists. against compensation recovery sought Secretary of State fund. uninsured motorist upon relying sought suits, a sec- dismissal recovery an in- Act which barred tion of the person jured covered workmen’s he was if *10 compensation. that those who demonstrated It was coverage similarly were had insurance against recovery the fund. Court This barred from legislative as uncon- classification struck down the stitutionally discriminatory. Like the 3109(1) Bowser, § which allows classification in plus private personal protection insurance benefits personal group, deducts from to but benefits one gov- anything protection received from a arbitrary program is unreasonable. ernment We find no establishing legitimate purpose for arbitrarily discriminates such against distinction which a those receive certain who benefits. 24.13109(1) 500.3109(1); find MCLA
We such, the is and of As act void be unconstitutional. Briggs of enactment. no effect as of the date Foundry Wyant Campbell, Co, & 379 Cannon (1967).5 such, 752 As the statute 150 NW2d rights upon protection to no no and affords confers Shelby County, US Norton defendant. 442; argument, L Defendant’s Ct 30 Ed 6 S provision in insur the set-off bargain of a reached ance was result contract contracting parties and thus is not affected 3109(1), egregious. validity invalidity § of mandatory. Without of the statute are terms See CJS, Constitutional Law, 101. v State Farm Ins Brennan, by V. J. J. Concurrence statute, "sanction” of such contract provision public patently policy, offensive to provision such, is invalid.6 provision set-off the contract is void. This entry cause is remanded to the trial court for judgment plaintiffs’ No favor. costs. (concurring).
V. J. J. I concur with Brennan, Judge opinion. T. M. Burns’ corollary gets
I no see as to who what or is getting they sources, what from various whether security, poli- dividends, social stock cies, etc., when it comes down to insurance benefits injuries received as a result incurred from accidents. companies successfully The insurance lobbied guise necessary legislation
"no fault” under the inevitably greatly which would reduce insurance they pass costs, which could and would toon public premiums. policy in the form of reduced yet premiums
I have have, see the lower but unfortunately, contrary, on the seen increased premiums coverage. *11 for the same These so-called savings passed public— have not been on to the savings present, are, doubt, and there no some companies, provision, the insurance under this picked up govern- have Sam” "Uncle and the state partners underwriting poli- ment as their in these cies.
Before "no fault” there was no reduction or
jury
subtraction in
verdicts of amounts received
6See, e.g.,
Wyandotte
ex
State
rel
Board of
Terbovich
Com’rs
County,
Taylor
16Í Kan
from social government benefits. provision reads: provided provided required "Benefits government shall be or the federal
the laws of state insurance bene- protection personal from the subtracted injury.” MCLA the payable otherwise fits 24.13109(1). 500.3109(1); MSA way could conclude that one it reads From the employees on retire- state and Federal all former their from accident subtracted could have ment monthly proceeds the of their amount pension. person place; provision
Why in first the the susceptible security to accidents more on social than compensate security’s purpose to Is who is not? social one prospective acci- our senior citizens a deduction from needs? How about dent cost recipient for the contri- in favor deduction security recipient into social butions years many he or she became before fund over security? eligible These observations for social yet they bordering obscure, could follow on logic present law. from the behind judgment no I can find reasona- matter of As a this classification. bleness provision I, too, the set-off would declare as void. contract (dissenting). respectfully dis- I P. J.
sent. necessary to this
A review of the facts brief injured fatally Plaintiff’s decedent was discussion. February 19, 1975. on collision in an automobile auto- insured under a no-fault was decedent *12 Farm Ins State by P. J. policy issued mobile insurance defendant. provided part: policy relevant "(5) payable by company the amount under the terms this insurance shall be reduced "(a) the paid, payable, required amount or to be provided under the govern- laws of state or federal ment.” payments para-
The reduction in allowed (5)(a) graph policy provided of the insurance 500.3109(1); 24.13109(1), in MCLA MSA states:
"(1) provided required Benefits provided under the of any government laws state or the federal shall be personal protection subtracted from the insur- ance payable benefits injury.” otherwise plaintiffs qualified for the maximum survi- per 30-day period. They $1,000 vor’s loss of also qualified security approxi- for social mately per paragraph month. Pursuant $560 (5)(a) policy, of the insurance the defendant re- paid duced the insurance benefits and $560 plaintiff approximately per month. $440 brought
Plaintiffs this action to recover plaintiff’s complaint alleged difference. Count I of requested breach of contract. Count II a declara- tory judgment 500.3109(1); that MCLA 28.13109(1), was unconstitutional as a violation equal protection process due of law and void incorporated policy. in the insurance summary judgment Defendant moved for on 117.2(1) grounded both counts on GCR supporting Defendant failed to file a affidavit. Consequently, only the trial court considered *13 App 487
502 70 Mich Bashara, P. J. Dissent upon a complaint to state claim failed whether the 117.2(1). granted. 1963, GCR which relief could be allege to I failed facts that count The court held constituting the of because insur- breach contract provided for a reduction contract ance provided "required under to be the amount government”. of or federal The state laws II failed to that count state a further ruled court private between was because the contract claim parties. Therefore, attack could a constitutional sustained, there existed no where state not be action. brought summary judgment
A motion for
117.2(1)
legal
merely
suffi
tests
GCR
ciency
plead
from the
of the claim determined
Biglow,
App
ings
346, 349;
Todd v
alone.
(1974),
733
den
I am of trial allege I of con- ruled that count failed breach allege pled do not breach of con- tract. The facts provided a insurance contract because the tract extent of in no-fault benefits to the reduction government benefits received. pro- of this is count
The heart
lawsuit
II.
scriptions
Amendment, US
of the Fourteenth
Farm Ins
v State
P. J.
apply
Const,
XIV,
Am
to actions
state and
merely
Shelley
v Kraemer,
conduct.
(1948).
1;
836;
334 US
92 L
applies
68 S Ct
Ed
legisla-
Fourteenth
to all state
Amendment
impairs
process
equal
tion which
due
or denies
protection.
Rights Cases,
3, 11;
Civil
109 US
3 S Ct
18;
(5)(a) policy the insurance 24.13109(1). 500.3109(1); enactment of MCLA City This is state action. See Peterson v Greenville, 373 US 83 S Ct 10 L Ed 2d *14 (1963). judge 323 I believe the trial erred in deter- mining action, no there was state and conse- quently failing ques- consider constitutional tions raised.
Appellate courts should not decide constitutional questions upon passed the trial court. Cor Union, Automobile, tez v International United Agricultural Aircraft & Workers of America (UAW-CIO), 446, 453; 339 64 Mich NW2d 636 (1954), Boyer, 197, v 199; Wilson 256 NW (1934). my opinion, proper procedure 854 In judge to remand to the trial for consideration questions the constitutional in raised the action declaratory judgment.1 my However, because necessary it brothers found to consider the consti question equal protection, tutional I feel com pelled respond. reasonable,
A classification must be not arbi- trary, persons similarly that all so situated are Reed, 71, 76; treated alike. Reed v 404 US 92 S Ct Royster 251; 30 L Ed 2d 225 FS Guano Co 1 particularly appropriate light majority’s A remand seems in of the 2, proof presented 500.3109; n statement in that no was that MCLA 24.13109, proofs presented in MSA results cost reduction. No were dispute summarily was because the resolved without consideration of question. the constitutional App 487 70
504 P. J. Virginia, 560; 415; S Ct 64 L 40 Ed 253 US (1920). Equal does Clause Protection The 989 deny power treat different to ways. classes state Railway Express persons different of Agency, York, 106; 463; 336 US S Ct
Inc, v New
(1949).
Connolly,
27;
113 US
L
Barbier
93 Ed
(1885).
grossest
357;
L Ed 923
5 S Ct
treating things
lie
can
discrimination
sometimes
they
exactly
though
alike.
that are different as
431, 442;
1970;
91 S
Fortson,
Ct
403 US
Jenness v
(1971).
L Ed 2d 554
correctly
majority
that a
determined
has
500.3109(1);
MCLA
discrimination exists
24.13109(1),
public
requires
benefits to
proceeds,
against
no-fault
be set-off
mandating
such reduction
no
while
majority
if
reasons
insurance benefits. The
provision
purpose
costs
is to reduce
the
eliminating duplicative
recovery,
a classifica-
such
only
arbitrary,
it
unreasonable and
tion is
public
operates
benefits.
receive
on those who
majority
opinion
my
combined two
has
In
they
if
were
treated them as
classes and
different
alike.
in Richardson v
occurred
The same error
Belcher,
suggestion govern- that the classes were alike. The statutory part benefits were all of a ment scheme recovery to insure a minimum provide threshold and to previously by private needs met insurance. Court determined the classification justified by Congress could the conclusion of duplication gradu- that Federal ally of benefits could atrophy weaken or the state workmen’s com- pensation systems. Furthermore, the Court refused purposes Congress to consider whether might provi- have been better served had offset private insurance, sions been extended to on the grounds it that would exceed their constitutional
authority.
"In wélfare, the area of economics social Equal State does not violate the Protection Clause merely because the classifications made its laws imperfect. If the classification has some 'rea- basis’, it does sonable not offend the Constitution simply because the classification 'is not made with nicety practice mathematical sults in some 397 US (1970). or because in it re- Dandridge
inequality’ Williams, ”. 471, 485; 90 S Ct L25 Ed 2d 491 security Social as well as other programs, compensation such as workmen’s bene- part statutory fits, are of an overall scheme estab- public policy provide lished as a matter of compensation persons minimum qualifying for all otherwise programs.
for benefits under the See Lasky 9, Co, Farm State Insurance 296 So 2d (Fla 1974), den, reh 43 Fordham L R programs These were fill a void intended to adequately by private covered insurance. See *16 App 487
506 Bashara, by P. J. Dissent supra, 83, Belcher, 404 US 84. v As Richardson distinguishing such, for a exists rational basis classes. rationally Legislature conclude that a could proceeds to the extent of one
reduction
receives
recovery
no-fault
duplicate
public
would eliminate
Legisla-
Whether
costs.
and reduce
providing
gone further,
an
ture should have
private insurance,
to
for us
con-
offset
reviewing
as a
under our limited function
sider
Richardson
v
constitution.
court
Equal
supra,
Belcher,
84.
202 US
Protection
taking
preclude the state from
does not
one
Clause
n step
addressing
phase
time,
of
itself to the
at a
neglecting
problem
acute, while
that
most
seems
Geduldig
phases
problem.
Aiello,
v
other
484,
2485;
L Ed 2d
495;
S Ct
41
256
417 US
(1974),
Optical Co,
v
US
Williamson Lee
489;
461; L Ed 563
75 S Ct
Assuming arguendo
majority
is correct that
indistinguishable,
analysis
their
classes are
justify
there
does not
the conclusion
is a
still
deprivation
equal protection
the law.
San
Independent
Rodriguez,
School District
Antonio
1, 20;
1278;
I summary would judg- reverse the trial independent ment as to count II and remand for constitutionality consideration of the of MCLA 24.13109(1). 500.3109(1);MSA