Our analysis is more narrow. We simply conclude that, contrary to the assumption of both the plaintiffs and the amicus, neither Gentile v. Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267, 363 A.2d 1 (1975), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 1041, 96 S.Ct. 763, 46 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976), nor Kelley Property Development, Inc., properly understood, establishes or necessarily implies that proposition, and that neither the plaintiffs nor the amicus has offered an analysis — beyond their shared assumption — to establish it. Thus, we leave the question of the validity of the proposition to a case in which it is fully analyzed, rather than merely assumed.

We generally have held that article first, § 10, prohibits the legislature from abolishing or significantly limiting common law and certain statutory rights that were redressable in court as of 1818, when the constitution was first adopted, and which were "incorporated in that provision by virtue of being established by law as rights the breach of which precipitates a recognized injury . . . ." Gentile v. Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267, 286, 363 A.2d 1 (1975), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 1041, 96 S.Ct. 763, 46 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976) (right to recover for injuries suffered in automobile accident rooted in common law action of trespass on the case);Daily v. New Britain Machine Co., 200 Conn. 562, 585, 512 A.2d 893 (1986) (right of action at common law to recover for injuries suffered as result of defective product). Common law rights that emerged after 1818 "'may be changed at the will, or even at the whim, of the legislature, unless prevented by [other] constitutional limitations. . . .'" Gentile v. Altermatt, supra, 283.

This Court also holds that the Michigan Legislature has authority under its police power to compel the purchase of no-fault insurance. Gentile v Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267; 363 A.2d 1 (1975), appeal dismissed 423 U.S. 1041 (1976); Montgomery v Daniels, 38 N.Y.2d 41; 340 N.E.2d 444 (1975); Singer v Shepperd, 464 Pa. 387; 346 A.2d 897 (1975); Lasky v State Farm Ins Co, 296 So.2d 9 (Fla, 1974); Manzanares v Bell, 214 Kan. 589; 522 P.2d 1291 (1974); Opinion of the Justices May 14, 1973, 113 N.H. 205; 304 A.2d 881 (1973); Grace v Howlett, 51 Ill.2d 478; 283 N.E.2d 474 (1972); and Pinnick v Cleary, 360 Mass. 1; 271 N.E.2d 592 (1971). See, also, Rybeck v Rybeck, 141 N.J. Super. 481; 358 A.2d 828 (1976), appeal dismissed per curiam as moot, 150 N.J. Super. 151; 375 A.2d 269 (1976), and Andrew v State, 238 Ga. 433; 233 S.E.2d 209 (1977).

Accordingly, we will consider the questions reserved. See General Statutes 52-235; Practice Book 390, 3133; Cavalli v. McMahon, 174 Conn. 212, 215, 384 A.2d 374 (1978); Gentile v. Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267, 271, 363 A.2d 1 (1975), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 1041, 96 S.Ct. 763, 46 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976); Bronson v. Thompson, 77 Conn. 214, 219, 58 A. 692 (1904). The first question reserved is: "Does Section 38-325 of the Connecticut General Statutes entitle the Defendant to full reimbursement of the entire amount of the basic reparations benefits paid to insureds who settled their claims against third parties?

In the following cases, in what must be recognized as at least partially distinguishable legal contexts, the legislation was sustained in its entirety: Pinnick v Cleary, 360 Mass. 1; Opinion of The Justices, 113 N.H. 205; Manzanares v Bell, 214 Kan. 589; Singer v Sheppard, 346 A.2d 897 (Pa, 1975); Fann v McGuffy, 534 S.W.2d 770 (Ky, 1975); Gentile v Altermatt, ___ Conn ___ (Aug. 5, 1975). In Lasky v State Farm Ins. Co. ( 296 So 2d 9 [Fla, 1974]), the Supreme Court of Florida, while finding portions of the no-fault statute before it unconstitutional, severed such portions and found the bulk of the statute constitutional.

"[A]ll rights derived by statute and the common law extant at the time of the adoption of article first, § 10, [of the Connecticut constitution of 1818] are incorporated in that provision by virtue of being established by law as rights the breach of which precipitates a recognized injury. . . ." Gentile v. Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267, 286, 363 A.2d 1 (1975), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 1041, 96 S.Ct. 763, 46 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976). These rights are referred to as "constitutionally incorporated common-law right[s]."

"[T]his court, in matters of significant public moment where the public interest would best be served by a dispersal of all constitutional clouds over the act in question, will exercise that discretion and decide all closely related issues." Gentile v. Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267, 281, 363 A.2d 1 (1975); Heiberger v. Clark, 148 Conn. 177, 184, 169 A.2d 652 (1961); West v. Egan, 142 Conn. 437, 441, 115 A.2d 322 (1955); Ruppert v. Liquor Control Commission, 138 Conn. 669, 673, 88 A.2d 388 (1952). A

The social problems leading to the act and its approach to the solutions of those problems have been previously outlined and need not be repeated here. See Gentile v. Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267, 363 A.2d 1 (1975), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 1041, 96 S.Ct. 763, 46 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976); Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Holder, 37 Conn. Sup. 723, 436 A.2d 308 (1981). Contained within the act, however, was what is now 38-330.

Carroll v. Schwartz, 127 Conn. 126, 130, 14 A.2d 754 (1940) . . . . The constitutional issue is whether legislative classifications or discriminations bear "a rational relationship to a legitimate state end and [are] based on reasons related to the pursuit of that goal." Gentile v. Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267, 295, 363 A.2d 1, appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 1041, 96 S.Ct. 763, 46 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976).' Caldor's, Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc., [ 177 Conn. 304, 314-15, 417 A.2d 343 (1979)]. . . . A classification is allowable if it bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate purpose of governmental action.

See, e.g., Pellegrino v. O'Neill, 193 Conn. 670, 684–85, 480 A.2d 476 (1984) (plurality opinion). This court's decision in Gentile v. Altermatt, 169 Conn. 267, 363 A.2d 1 (1975), which the defendant relies upon, does not dictate a contrary result. In Gentile, this court held that the 1818 adoption of article first, § 10, of the Connecticut constitution “recognized all existing rights and removed from the power of the legislature the authority to abolish those rights in their entirety.