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

More than one funeral director has expressed the opinion that the State Board should never have been given rule making authority. We'll never know, but if the State Board had rulemaking authority 22 years ago, it could have implemented rules to help enforce NPS' 1990 settlement agreement, and thereby avoided that company's collapse. But equally important, rule making authority provides the State Board the means to clarify the ambiguities and gaps that exist in Senate Bill. No 1. This is as much to assist the preneed seller who has a business practice that does not fall neatly within the law as it does the State Board attempting to address how that practice should be regulated.

But, Missouri's first attempt to pass a 'conventional' preneed regulation has been a trying exercise for the State Board, its staff and the industry, with mutual frustrations getting the better of everyone. All concerned may have been spoiled by the level of cooperation exhibited when emergency regulations were needed to keep Missouri's preneed industry operating. Had it not been for those emergency regulations, Missouri's preneed industry would have come to a screeching halt for months.

Following the passage of the emergency rules, the State Board staff recommended that the industry's other SB1 complaints be tabled to provide the financial examination process the time required for Division personnel to 'get their arms around the issues". That made perfect sense to this author, that is until the insurance assignment became the focal point for the Board's first regulation.

The political realities are that the State of Missouri needs revenues, and the excess insurance proceeds paid to funeral homes should be paid to the State pursuant to RSMo 208.010.7(4) before refunded to the families of assistance recipients. If funeral homes use the spend down provisions to their benefit when meeting with families, then they should also have a duty to comply with Chapter 208. But, the problem has been that families were allowed to exclude insurance policies for asset testing without a preneed contract, and the drafters of SB1 were focused on NPS and the sale of preneed contracts.

SB1 has flaws, and the Division once acknowledged that corrective legislation would eventually be needed. Our question is whether the Board's first regulation is indication that the State now has a double standard when it comes to preneed regulations and the need for corrective legislation: a restrictive interpretation of SB1 for the industry and a liberal interpretation for itself?

Like SB1, the Board's first regulation proposal was forced by the State, and has its own flaws. The proposal is too broad in attempting to define all insurance assignments and beneficiary designations as the consideration that triggers SB1. The proposal also extends the preneed contract fee without an explanation of the examination procedures needed for the transaction. Then to buttress the position that the regulation binds all outstanding insurance assignments, the State relies upon a confidential legal memorandum as having put the industry on notice. If the industry does not find the State's rationale credible, many funeral homes may refuse to comply. We find it frustrating that the State could accomplish most of what it wants without sacrificing credibility. That credibility will be important to getting funeral homes to embrace the future changes required for compliance with SB1. It remains to be seen whether the State will be flexible with the industry in achieving their mutual goals.

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

Three years ago we asked that question with regard to the power struggle occurring between the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors and the Missouri Division of Professional Registration staff. That post was influenced by our experiences with preneed regulators from other states, who range from elected politicians to the revolving door bureaucrat. I would always prefer the experience and stability of a Dennis Britson or a Mack Smith, but they honed their skills over decades, and Missouri is under a bit of pressure to get reform rolling. With the Missouri Legislature having vested preneed supervision with the industry, we saw hope that Missouri could establish a unique structure where the experience of the industry would mesh with a staff with long term commitments. But silly me; the regulations drafted in response to a December vote on insurance assignments provide the answer to “Who is the Boss?” It is the Governor.

I must confess that my mind drifts at times when I attend the State Board meetings. Okay, I also check emails from time to time when the Executive Director gives her reports. But, the regulation proposals leave me wondering whether I was in the wrong room last December. But, Mr. Otto did whisper to me from time to time during the meeting I thought was the State Board’s. Maybe we were at a MFDEA meeting? Then again, I recall a unanimous vote that defined the insurance assignment as a preneed contract that was to be exempt from the $36 fee.

My warning from the “Who is the Boss” post in 2010 was this:

Death care operators are often frustrated when regulators take actions that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the business (or worse yet, a misunderstanding of applicable laws). The risk to both the death care operator and consumer is when the elected preneed regulator allows politics to influence the reform process. Elected regulators may pose the greatest challenge to developing effective preneed supervision, and then maintaining that system.

It is obvious the Governor doesn’t read this blog. Since 2010, an elected politician has made insurance assignments our preneed reform priority. I get it. The excess insurance proceeds could help offset the benefits paid to nursing homes, and Chapter 208 requires a Chapter 436 preneed contract. The State doesn’t want to revisit Chapter 436. It would be easier to manipulate the language of SB1 to get the desired result. (It’s not like the industry doesn’t do it too.) It took the State Board 18 months to offer a compromise, and one that was a win-win for the state and the industry. But, you are overplaying this hand by demanding the $36 per contract fee.

For the past two years, the industry and Board members have asked what the Division really needs in terms of fees to conduct exams. The answers have been evasive at best, but I could defend that response because the examination procedures are work in progress. But, your regulation proposals indicate that “The costs for the Board to administer preneed contracts is the same per contract, regardless of the value of the preneed contract.” If that is the case, then what is the cost per contract to perform a preneed examination? I find the Division’s budget for the State Board confusing, but the numbers attached to the agenda are significant. Is the Division receiving more that it needs, and if so, where do those funds go?

Up to this point, the examination procedures have focused on recordkeeping and confirming that consumer funds were deposited to banks and insurance companies. At some later date those procedures will need to look at how those funds are administered and paid out to funeral homes. But, until then, why is the $36 fee required on a transaction where the funeral director does not receive funds until after a death has occurred?

Three years ago I defended the slow pace of the Division, and advised the industry that reform required a shared responsibility between the Division and the State Board.  Accordingly, please respect the Legislature and let the State Board perform its role for reform under SB1.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Who can honestly say they saw this one coming?

 On July 5, 2012, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors filed a complaint with the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission against a Missouri funeral home for alleged violations of Chapter 436, including several transactions that predate Senate Bill No. 1. So, three years after the passage of Senate Bill No. 1, the State Board has initiated its first formal proceeding against a preneed seller.  SB1 armed the State Board with several new tools, including the preneed financial examination.   Pointing to the massive fraud committed by National Prearranged Services, the State’s regulators convinced the Missouri Legislature that such tools were necessary to protect the consumer.  What misconduct did the new financial examination tool uncover that warranted a formal complaint: the funeral home failed to report, and adequately document, insurance assignments and beneficiary designations.

The crux of the State Board‘s argument is stated in Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Complaint:

49.       A preneed contract is sold when a seller accepts an insurance assignment or is named as owner (prior to August 28, 2009) or beneficiary of a life insurance policy pursuant to an arrangement between the seller and the consumer to ensure payment for the final disposition of the consumer's dead human body and for funeral or burial services, facilities or merchandise upon the death of the consumer.

50.       ******  Funeral sold and entered into preneed contracts with those consumers specified in Exhibit A when ******* Funeral accepted insurance assignment or was named as beneficiary on an insurance policy when the consumer made such assignment or designation with the intent of paying ******* Funeral for the costs of his or her own final disposition.

The State Board’s position (with regard to insurance assignments and beneficiary designations made prior to August 28, 2009) is based on the following:

31. Section 436.005, RSMo (2000), set forth definitions for the Old Law and stated, in relevant portion:

(5) "Preneed contract", any contract or other arrangement which requires the current payment of money or other property in consideration for the final disposition of a dead human body, or for funeral or burial services or facilities, or for funeral merchandise, where such disposition, services, facilities or merchandise are not immediately required, including, but not limited to, an agreement providing for a membership fee or any other fee having as its purpose the furnishing of burial or funeral services or merchandise at a discount, except for contracts of insurance, including payment of proceeds from contracts of insurance, unless the preneed seller or provider is named as the owner or beneficiary in the contract of insurance[.]

What the State Board is asserting is that Chapter 436 has always defined as a preneed contract any insurance assignment or beneficiary designation made in favor of a funeral home prior to the death of the insured.   That will come as news to most of the industry (99.9% or so), and cause some operators to ask what those six Board Members are smoking.  But for those individuals who regularly attend the meetings of the State Board, this position may not necessarily reflect the views of the State Board members.

The Board’s staff began pressing the State Board more than two years ago to provide clarification on when insurance assignments and beneficiary designations constitute a preneed contract.   At that meeting in Festus, Missouri, the staff also reminded the Board and the industry of the funeral director’s duties under Chapter 208 to make inquiries to the Third Party Liability Unit (of the Department of Social Services) before making refunds to families.   The insurance issue resurfaced last fall (with the conclusion of the initial onsite financial examinations).  Since then, the issue has been bounced back and forth like a ping pong ball between the staff and the Board.   The staff has made various proposals, which the Board has rejected. 

As we have previously suggested, this transaction is one which should be documented by a contract.  Some within the industry assert there is no contract.  I disagree.  The policy owner has made the assignment or beneficiary designation with the expectation that the funeral home will apply the proceeds to their funeral.  The funeral director understands that expectation, and often relies on Chapter 208 for recommending the assignment of insurance.  I agree with the staff in that the ‘professional trust and confidence’ contemplated by Section 333.330.2(14) dictates that this transaction be documented by a contract.  The staff would then argue that any contract made by a funeral home that contemplates future performance must be a preneed contract, and ergo, a Chapter 436 contract.  I disagree. 

Chapter 436 was first enacted in 1965, but was re-written in 1982.  The 1982 law provided the industry the first definition of a “preneed contract”, which was the same as that cited by the Complaint, except that it did not include the following: 

except for contracts of insurance, including payment of proceeds from contracts of insurance, unless the preneed seller or provider is named as the owner or beneficiary in the contract of insurance[.]

There was sufficient confusion whether insurance policies were covered by Chapter 436 that the preceding phrase was added by legislation that took effect in 1986.  The 1986 legislation was hotly debated, and the product of various compromises, and the result included a horribly ambiguous definition.  A literal interpretation of the new “preneed contract” definition would find that an insurance contract is not a preneed contract ‘unless the preneed seller or provider is named as the owner or beneficiary in the contract of insurance’.    But when the seller or provider is named as owner or beneficiary, the contract of insurance is a preneed contract.   That bears repeating: the contract of insurance is a preneed contract.  What the heck does that mean?

The old law was poorly drafted, and ambiguous, in many respects.  There always has been confusion over the extent to which Chapter 436 governed insurance funded preneed.   The old law was written with one preneed transaction in mind: the trust funded guaranteed contract.   Joint accounts were addressed as the first afterthought, and then four years later, insurance was added as another afterthought.   For years the Board staff struggled with whether insurance funded contracts had to be deposited to trust.   And now, 30 years after the old law was enacted, the staff (or is it the State Board) wants to begin enforcing those ambiguous provisions?

What motivations does the staff have for pressing the State Board on the insurance assignment issue?   The need for clarity was the initial explanation given.  The next justification given was the need to protect the consumer.   Both of these have merit, but one can’t help but wonder if Chapter 208 may also provide a third motivation. 

It would be political suicide for any candidate to suggest that Missouri needs to raise taxes.  Instead, state agencies look for other ways to generate revenues, whether that be through fees or charges.  Accordingly, someone in Jefferson City may also be looking at the funeral home’s obligations under Chapter 214.  In conjunction with that 2010 meeting in Festus, the staff has incorporated a MO HealthNet page on the State Board website.   That page is meant as notice to the industry that funeral homes have a duty to make inquiries to Department of Social Services before making refunds back to families.   (You funeral directors can now add tax collector to your job description.)  But that duty only applies to Chapter 436 contracts.

The Complaint seems a heavy handed attempt to force the State Board to define the insurance assignments as Chapter 436 contracts.  While there is need for clarity and consumer protection, neither the old law nor SB1 was intended to regulate the assignment of an existing insurance policy.  SB1 is intended to regulate the sale of contracts where performance is deferred to a future date, and the administration of the consumer’s payments.    The staff must twist SB1 provisions to reach the conclusion that all insurance assignments give rise to a preneed contract.   That approach is not much different from the one NPS used with the old law. 

So, what are those State Board members to do?  Here is a proposal for their consideration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For some Missouri funeral homes, the ‘disagreement’ over the Section 436.405.1.(8) and insurance assignments has been brought to their doorstep.  In January, the State Board and their staff debated the issue of whether insurance assignments and beneficiary designations made in favor of a funeral home should constitute a preneed contract. The State Board rejected the staff’s interpretation of the fore mentioned section, and now the auditors seem to be pressing that disagreement to the Missouri’s funeral homes by way of the Chapter 436 financial examination.

This blog went on record in opposition to the staff’s regulation proposal as too broad, but there is also a need to go on record for the need for better consumer protection in these transactions.

When an assignment of insurance (or the designation of beneficiary) is made, it is done so in anticipation that the funeral home will apply the death benefits to the insured’s funeral arrangement. But have there been any promises about the prices or the right of the insured’s family to use another funeral home?  Such issues should be set out in an agreement between the funeral home and the insured so that the insured’s family is not left to guess. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks