Group ex rel. Conrad v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., 304 N.J.Super. 10, 18-19, 697 A.2d 952 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 152 N.J. 188, 704 A.2d 18 (1997) (upholding auto insurer’s right to seek reimbursement in workers’ compensation division for PIP benefits paid). The purpose of the collateral source rule is to “prevent double recovery of benefits by accidental victims of personal injury to the extent that these benefits were mandated otherwise by law” and to advance the legislative goal of reducing automobile insurance premiums. O’Boyle v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 241 N.J.Super. 503, 507-08, 575 A.2d 515 (App.Div.1990). A double recovery presupposes congruence of the two benefits implicated. See Skryha v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 206 N.J.Super. 66, 70-71, 501 A.2d 1021 (App.Div.1985) (<HOLDING>). Resolution of the issue before us therefore
holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed recognizing that the rationale for  104a2   is presumably that the recovery does not generate a gain or profit but only makes the taxpayer whole by compensating for a loss holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute holding that employees vacation benefits are form of compensation for services rendered and are not gratuity holding that because the workers compensation law makes no provision for compensating a surviving dependent for the loss of services the decedent rendered to his family during his lifetime the collateral source rule did not bar recovery by the survivor of pip essential services benefits