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

For more than 20 years, Nebraska preneed sellers have filed an annual report that accounts for the aggregate contributions and distributions from their trust funds. The annual report form also computes the amount of income that must be accrued to the account if the seller elects to withdraw excess income from the trust. In its quest to determine whether preneed trusts are adequately funded, the Department of Insurance has made a request for individual contract data that supports the annual report.

Nebraska’s request for individual contract data reflects a trend developing with other Midwest death care regulators.

Individual contract data reporting was a priority in failed legislation by Kansas regulators.

Missouri’s State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has acknowledged the need to determine whether existing preneed trusts are adequately funded, and that objective requires some detail about what comprises the trusts established under the prior law.

Missouri cemeteries are about to embark on preneed sales under a new law, and regulators have already expressed a need to know about those sales.

While many death care operators may challenge the individual account data request as burdensome or intrusive, operators harmed by NPS or the IFDA insurance debacle, have reason to be providing such information.

The degree an NPS provider suffers ‘damage” by honoring a preneed contract depends on several factors: the age of the contract, the casket, the funeral home’s current atneed prices, to name a few. To challenge that more than the guaranty association payout is needed, the industry must be willing to provide hard facts based on actual contract data. If the active NPS contracts are included in a state’s annual reporting, a basis has been established for a database for tracking the NPS consequence to the industry.

The same is true for Illinois funeral directors seeking to recover for the IFDA asset meltdown. Recovery has to be based on contract data.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Funeral Director and Embalmer Association provided crucial support to the passage of Senate Bill No. 1, but the heart of the association’s membership, the mom and pop operators, may now be second-guessing that decision.

SB1 provides regulators the authority to audit or examine preneed trusts and joint accounts, including those established prior to August 28, 2009. Missouri funeral directors are now hearing that the State Board will enforce provisions of the law against their old preneed business in such a way so to put their funeral establishment licenses at risk.

The State Board’s authority to audit preneed sellers under the old law was vague. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the State Board conducted ‘random’ audits. In reality, the audits were not random, but weighted by the number of contracts sold. Using independent CPA firms, audits were made of the same small group of sellers. The practice was challenged in the mid-1990s, and audits were discontinued.

While the vast majority of Missouri sellers have never been audited, their preneed contracts have been reviewed periodically by State Board inspectors. Funeral directors are now troubled by the prospect of those contracts failing to pass muster when reviewed by an independent CPA firm.

The licensees’ worries are well founded. Few funeral homes engaged legal counsel for the purpose of preparing preneed contracts or trust agreements. Instead, funeral homes shared or borrowed documents, often without regard to such specifics as how the contract was to be funded. Consequently, funeral homes have used trust-funded contracts for joint accounts.

Some funeral directors are bound to take a defiant position with the State Board’s enforcement of SB1 against their preneed paperwork. While it is predictable that the State Board may assert the licensee’s failure to engage legal counsel is no defense, licensees represented by counsel also have reason to be indignant with the Board.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks