In a judge and jury motor vehicle trial involving catastrophic injuries, the court considered whether future medication costs should be reduced to reflect potential public drug coverage available when the plaintiff turned 65.
Applying purposive statutory interpretation to s. 267.8(12)(a)(v) of the Insurance Act, the court held that ODBP coverage is not a 'payment' to which the plaintiff is entitled because no money or transferable value is delivered to the insured person.
As a result, any future ODBP benefit was not assignable to the defendants.
The jury was therefore entitled to consider possible future public drug coverage as a contingency in assessing future medication costs.
