(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I believe that § 3109(f)1 mandates a setoff of only the amount actually received by plaintiff *379through the redemption of his workers’ compensation claim.
I agree with the majority that the pertinent language of § 3109 calls for subtraction of those benefits "provided or required to be provided under the laws of any state or the federal government”. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, I agree that the plain meaning of "require” is "to ask or insist upon, as by right or authority; demand”. Applying this definition literally to the pertinent language of § 3109 leads me to conclude that the amount to be set off is that which the laws of this state, in this instance the workers’ compensation law, insist upon. At the times relevant to this suit, the workers’ compensation law did not require the payment of full scheduled benefits, but instead permitted redemptions for a lesser lump sum.2 Here, the additional $8,566.28 will not be paid to plaintiff by his employer’s compensation carrier because it is not "required to be provided” and because plaintiff was willing to settle for less.
1 would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
MCL 500.3109(1); MSA 24.13109(1).
The Legislature has since acted to prohibit future redemptions as a part of its most recent reform of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act. See 1981 PA 192-1981 PA 204.