Death Care Law Blog : Kansas Death Care and Preneed Lawyer & Attorney : Stalter Legal Services Law Firm : Funeral Law, Elder Law : Kansas City

A year ago, the Dayton JournalNews ran a series of articles about the regulation of the death care industry in Ohio.   The reporting was comprehensive, with articles about preneed.  Earlier this year, legislation was introduced in Ohio to further restrict who could sell preneed.  However, the legislation does not address the trusting issues that rankle consumer advocates.  That bill was approved by the Ohio Senate, and will be considered next by the House.

Some of those same issues will be brought front and center in Jefferson City, Missouri when hearings are commenced on the reform of Missouri's preneed law on July 8th.  A full discussion of all the issues would benefit consumer advocates, regulators and the death care industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 8^th, Donna Garrett, the Special Deputy Receiver for the NPS affiliates, filed with the Texas Travis County Court an application for fees. The application includes a schedule of fees that will be charged by the subcontractors to be utilized by the SDR. The filing would seem to indicate the law firm of Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus, PC. will be serving as the SDR’s main counsel.  

Proceedings such as last week’s lawsuit brought by James & Gahr Mortuary will contribute to the expense that must be borne by the SDR.   The $250,000 sought for fees and expense in the June 8^th Application is only the beginning.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The class action lawsuit brought against the NPS affiliates on Friday, June 20^th reflects the despair that some funeral directors are experiencing over the situation. Although litigation to recover assets from the Cassity Empire was inevitable, this lawsuit has flaws that need to be corrected through an organized effort brought by the states’ regulators.

Funeral homes have a legal claim for damages against NPS to the extent they have serviced NPS contracts and failed to receive the compensation promised them by NPS. Consequently, I anticipated finding this provider’s associate agreement as an exhibit to the pleading. However, the filing omitted documentation that would evidence the funeral home’s rights and obligations with regard to the performed contracts and the contracts that remain to be performed. As evidenced by the June 9^th Funeral Service Insider, NPS played by fast and loose rules when it came to their relationships with provider funeral homes. So, what are funeral homes entitled to?

The lawsuit also fails to include the consumer as a member of the plaintiff class. With regard to executory preneed contracts, the consumer has superior rights to the funeral home. Ignoring the rollover contracts, the funeral home has an expectation of performing the preneed contract when the death occurs. However, the consumer could always move to another state, or cancel the contract. Until the funeral is provided, it is the consumer who has the greater claim of damages from NPS. His/her NPS contract has no cancellation value or portability. 

The lawsuit is also troubling in the sense it presumes that whole life insurance policies were appropriate trust investments under Missouri’s preneed law. Chapter 436 is a bit ambiguous about insurance funded contracts, but with regard to trust funding, the law permits the preneed seller to retain 20% of the contract’s purchase price, and to trust the remaining 80%. Unless the purchaser makes the contract irrevocable to qualify for public assistance, the contract can be cancelled and the seller must refund the amount that went into trust. So, if the seller trusts only 80%, how can the trustee purchase a whole life policy and have the liquidity required for Chapter 436 compliance?  

This funeral home points an accusing finger at the fiduciaries, but the pleading reflects the funeral home’s acceptance of the trust holding whole life insurance. A question regulators might ask is whether the funeral home received any compensation for the insurance purchased by the trust. 

Regulators have valid excuses for distancing themselves from this lawsuit, but consumers need an independent authority pursuing their (and funeral directors’) claims against NPS.   If regulators do not recover sufficient assets, funeral homes will fail and consumers will lose their funeral promises.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

On June 11^th, Senator Delbert Scott met with a number of death care industry members and regulators to begin mapping out the direction for preneed reform in Missouri.  From that meeting, it was decided that the state’s death care regulators would form review committees that would facilitate a dialog on the issues, and help formulate recommendations for the Missouri Legislature’s Joint Committee on Preneed Funeral Contracts. The Joint Committee is expected to begin hearings in September.  

The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has formed its Chapter 436 Review Committee, with the first meeting scheduled for July 8th. The Office of Endowed Care will defer formation of its review committee until later in July. The Chapter 214 Review Committee will not meet until August, after the Chapter 436 review committee meetings are concluded. 

To provide some structure for the Chapter 436 meetings, the State Board is circulating a survey on 67 issues. The review committee meetings will have to maintain tight schedules in order to adequately address those issues. The review committee meetings will provide public attendees an opportunity to provide comments. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In what may prove to be a lengthy legal proceeding, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon filed suit against Forever Network, Inc., an affiliate of National Prearranged Services (NPS).  While the suit may duplicate the injunctions effected by the Agreed Order obtained by the Texas Department of Insurance, consumers should take comfort by the fact Mr. Nixon has begun taking action.  

While it may be days before a copy of the petition can be obtained for review, I anticipate the pleading may share some of the same assertions and requests made by Texas.  While this duplication may be confusing to funeral directors, the difficulty regulators face in bringing proceedings against NPS is that each regulator must establish the requisite authority for the remedies sought.   For Jay Nixon and the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, Chapter 436 is full of ambiguities, making their case against NPS challenging (but not impossible). 

The Missouri regulators have a stated goal of ensuring that consumers receive the services they have paid for.  While Chapter 436 has its many faults, regulators should keep in mind Section 436.007.2, which provides:

If a preneed contract does not comply with the provisions of sections 436.005 to 436.071, all payments made under such contract shall be recoverable by the purchaser, his heirs, or legal representative, from the contract seller or other payee thereof, together with interest at the rate of ten percent per annum and all reasonable costs of collection, including attorneys' fees.

NPS aggressively marketed preneed contracts on an installment basis that incorporated vague finance charges and “premature death discount fees”.  These charges often drove the price of the preneed contract up by thousands of dollars.  Justice would taste sweet if the Cassitys' had to give it all back.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It is not a good sign when our regulators communicate by letter.  Friday's Post Dispatch story underscores the friction that exists among some of the regulatory agencies caught in the NPS fiasco. 

In one aspect, the letter is intended to demonstrate that the Missouri Attorney General's Office is dependent upon the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors and the Missouri Department of Insurance to refer matters for investigation.   However, the letter also demonstrates the defensive posture being taken by the regulators as they prepare for the worst.

The article also underscores the inconsistent information being provided by regulators.  While the Post Dispatch indicates that NPS has a billion dollars of outstanding preneed contracts, regulators have not been willing to confirm the preneed liability or the amount of assets under their control.

With this Fall's elections, the posturing is understandable.   But, let's hope that the Missouri Attorney General has initiated discussions with the US Attorneys Office about the pursuit of the Cassitys' "suspect business practices".

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I will preface this blog entry by stating that I do not fault the Texas Department of Insurance for the Rule 11 Agreement if giving up litigation against NPS/Lincoln Memorial (and the various individuals) was the price extracted for gaining control of the companies and the preneed records.  Someone needed to take action, and I commend Texas for taking the lead. 

However, the Texas Department of Insurance has requested that I clarify my May 27th (Texas Hold'em) blog entry.   Here is their statement:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Preneed companies often reach too far in touting the advantages of their company or product. Such is the case with an article in the June edition of the American Funeral Director. Not to be confused with the infamous Lincoln Memorial Life, Lincoln Heritage Life offers advice why insurance funded preneed is often a better choice for funeral directors and consumers. While the author is correct about there being advantages to the insurance funded product, the article makes several gross generalizations and neglects to address the disadvantages of insurance. The timing of the article couldn’t be worse with the evolving NPS/Lincoln Memorial Life scandal. 

Preneed companies should know better than to make such generalizations. State laws regulate the preneed transaction, and so long as this remains true, the wide variance in these laws precludes simple generalizations.   Preneed laws are confusing, and often contradictory.   Preneed companies should resist giving consumers and funeral directors an impression that is otherwise. Funeral directors are not children, so drop the condescending analogies to the Cookie Monster.   Insurance doesn’t mysteriously create two cookies.

Purchaser payments are used by the insurance company to pay commission, administration, contract forms, state insurance department filings, advertising, taxes, actuary salaries, marketing expenses, and reserve requirements. The insurance company overhead results in a low cash surrender value for the older consumer. The older the consumer, the higher the mortality risk. The higher the mortality risk, the more the insurance company has to charge for the insurance policy purchased with installments. The preneed consumer in his/her 70’s may end up paying premiums that exceed the policy death benefit.   

Under given facts, the insurance policy will out perform a trust. For the preneed contract that has a duration of ten or more years, the properly managed trust often outperforms the insurance product. How does the article’s analysis hold up for the trust that averages 6 percent after taxes and expenses? The problem is that many trusts are not managed well, and the investment return may be the low 4 percent the author describes. Small preneed trusts are often ‘parked’ in mutual funds or government securities.     

What about those licensing requirements? Maintaining individual life insurance licenses can be burdensome for funeral directors. With the NPS/Lincoln debacle, the industry will likely see states pass tougher laws on who can sell insurance. After all, the NPS/Lincoln crisis is as much an insurance problem as it is a trust problem. As the article suggests, funeral directors should look closely at the insurance company’s history and financial strength.   Also consider the ‘associates’ that the insurance company retains. For those NPS providers looking for a new insurance program:  

"Fool me once,
shame on you.
Fool me twice,
shame on me."

--Chinese Proverb

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks