Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 218716; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Hood, and McDonald; unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Funeral and Burial Expenses [3107(1)(a)]
Social Security Funeral and Burial Benefits [3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion written by Judge McDonald, the Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression, ruled that a no-fault insurance company may not, under section 3109(1), reduce no-fault funeral and burial expense benefits by the $255 “death benefit payment” payable under the United States Social Security Act [42 USC 402(i)]. The court held that section 3109(1) permits an offset of governmentally paid benefits only where the two (2) part test set forth in Jarosz v DAIIE [Item No. 702] has been satisfied. The Jarosz test permits governmental benefits to be set off only where the governmental benefit (1) serves the same purpose as the no-fault benefit and (2) results from the same accident. In this case, the Court of Appeals found that the Social Security death benefit is not intended to be a funeral and burial expense and therefore it does not serve the same purpose as funeral and burial expenses recoverable under the No-Fault Act. Therefore, the first element of the Jarosz test is not satisfied, and accordingly, the governmental benefit cannot be offset against no-fault benefits. In this regard, the court stated:
“Jarosz provides further guidance to our determination whether the two benefits serve the same purpose by identifying the events triggering entitlement as one of the factors signifying similarity of purpose. In this case, the two benefits are not triggered by the same event. The no-fault payment is triggered by the funeral and burial of the decedent; proof of expenses incurred by the recipient is required. The lump-sum payment, on the other hand, is triggered by the death of an insured person who leaves eligible survivors; no funeral or burial is required, and the payment would be made even if there were no remains to be buried.
The federal statute is clear on its face that the lump-sum death payment is not intended to pay for the burial of the decedent. Nothing in the statute mentions funeral expenses, and beneficiaries are not required to make any proof that the payment would be used for such expenses. The no-fault payment, on the other hand, is strictly intended to defray the costs of burial. These two payments do not serve the same purpose; therefore, under Jarosz, defendant may not decrease its liability by subtracting $255 from its obligation.”
