The Funeral Law Blog

Sending Joe the Plumber to Pick Up Grandma's Body

Even when the dead bodies Zachary Smeltz lifts for a living are hefty, he makes sure to handle even the burliest corpse in a gentle manner, masking any exertion. “Treat every case like that’s your mom that you’re transferring,” is the motto Mr. Smeltz imparts on the staff of the mortuary transport business he owns that sends him all over New Jersey and Pennsylvania and to other locales, picking up bodies.

via www.nytimes.com

This is how protectionist occupational licensing regimes emerge and are strengthened. Well-meaning outside observers write about something they don't really understand, in this case the "shadowy and sometimes controversial industry" of body transport companies, and then suggest that the answer to the hypothetical problems is more regulation.

"Others in the funeral industry contend the body transport business should be more strictly regulated," The New York Times reports.

“There are some states you don’t even have to be a funeral director,” said Scott M. Schmidt, the president of the New York State Association of County Coroners and Medical Examiners. “You just hang a shingle on a wall and you’re an undertaker all of a sudden.”

First of all, it is absurdly untrue to suggest that anyone can "hang a shingle" and become an undertaker anywhere in the United States. Second, yes, of course people within the industry want more regulation to restrict these activities to those within their industry. It is called economic protectionism.

"The purpose of New York’s stringent regulation, Mr. Schmidt said, is 'so you’re not sending out Joe the Plumber to pick up Grandma at the nursing home.'"

Because we all know what a problem THAT is...

Tanya Marsh

Consumers Stand to Lose in Battle Between Pennsylvania Funeral Directors and Cemeteries

A “turf battle” between funeral directors and StoneMor Partners, a public company that has a 60-year deal with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to manage 13 Catholic cemeteries in the Philadelphia area, threatens to impose restrictions on cemeteries throughout Pennsylvania that will reduce consumer choice and raise prices. The Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Association supports Senate Bill 874, co-sponsored by Senator Robert Tomlinson (R), owner of Tomlinson Funeral Home in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.

The bill proposes several changes to the Pennsylvania Cemetery and Funeral Merchandise Trust Fund Law.  If a person purchases funeral or cemetery goods and services on a preneed basis in Pennsylvania, current law requires that the funeral home or cemetery deposit 70% of the retail sales price of the goods or services in a merchandise trust fund established with a Pennsylvania bank. Customers can pay for a preneed contract in one lump sum, or in payments over time. The law currently states that the funeral home or cemetery must make the deposit to the merchandise trust fund within 30 days after the final payment is made. So, if a customer is paying over, say, 60 months, the seller isn’t required to make the 70% deposit into the merchandise trust fund for five years. SB 874 proposes that the 70% deposit must be made each month that the seller receives payments on the preneed contract.

SB 874 also provides that “there shall be no delivery of merchandise or product, except for mausoleums, cremation gardens, markers and lawn crypts, prior to the death of the person for whose benefit the contract was made.” This change eliminates “constructive delivery” of caskets and vaults in Pennsylvania. Under the current law, a customer could enter into a preneed contract and the seller could immediately take their funds and purchase the casket or vault and then “warehouse” them until the time of need. Cemeteries “warehouse” vaults by installing them into the ground, sometimes years before they are actually used.

The changes regarding the timing of deposits to the merchandise trust fund and the end of constructive delivery are pro-consumer changes. But consumer protection isn’t the goal of SB 874. That is clear in the bill’s failure to change one of the most anti-consumer aspects of the Cemetery and Funeral Merchandise Trust Fund Law—the liquidated damages provision.

Under current Pennsylvania law, if a customer defaults on a single payment under a preneed contract (even the final payment), the funeral home or cemetery is permitted to retain 30% of the contract price (not the payments to date, but the total contract price) as liquidated damages. So, let’s say I enter into a preneed contract with a funeral home today for $10,000 worth of funeral goods and services, with a plan to make $1,000 payment each year for the next ten years. The funeral home will collect my payments and deposit 70% in the merchandise trust fund with the remaining 30% in their own special account. If I default at any time during that ten-year period, the funeral home is permitted to keep $3,000 of my payments as liquidated damages and terminate our preneed contract. Keep in mind that the funeral home hasn’t actually spent any money on goods and services to benefit me—they have just been collecting payments and waiting for me to die.

These liquidated damages are justified by the industry based on the seller’s need to be compensated for their time and effort in securing the preneed contract. But that logic is undermined by the very different treatment of customers who make their payment without default and then move out of state after the final payment. In that situation, the customer can cancel the contract and receive a refund of the entire prepayment. The seller, however, gets to keep the interest earned.

The real purpose of the bill is made clear with the seemingly innocuous provision that “a [preneed] seller must … adhere to the Federal Trade Commission’s Funeral Industry Practices Revised Rules regarding the sale of the merchandise.” This reference is to the FTC’s so-called “Funeral Rule,” which requires “funeral providers” (which are sellers of both funeral goods and services, i.e. funeral homes) to give customers detailed price lists and to make certain disclosures. The FTC Funeral Rule does not apply to cemeteries because they do not sell “funeral services.” Many of the disclosures required by the Funeral Rule make little sense if they are imposed on cemeteries. For example, the Funeral Rule requires funeral providers to include the following disclosure on their outer burial container (vault) price list: “In most areas of the country, state or local law does not require that you buy a container to surround the casket in the grave. However, many cemeteries require that you have such a container so that the grave will not sink in. Either a grave liner or a burial vault will satisfy these requirements.” If a cemetery is required to publish an outer burial container price list with this disclosure, consumers would be understandably confused.

Cemetery customers in Pennsylvania, prepare to be confused. SB 874 proposes to extend the FTC Funeral Rule to cemeteries in Pennsylvania. In a comment letter dated October 20, 2015, the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning and Bureau of Economics, Competition, and Consumer Protection urged the Pennsylvania legislature not to extend the Funeral Rule to cemeteries. The FTC noted that in its 2008 review of the Funeral Rule, it chose not to extend it to cemeteries because “there is insufficient evidence that commercial cemeteries, crematories, and third-party sellers of funeral goods are engaged in widespread unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The FTC also noted that extending the Funeral Rule to cemeteries would lead to consumer confusion because the FTC Act is not applicable to most non-profit entities. Approximately 70% of the active cemeteries in the United States are owned by non-profit entities such as municipalities and religious organizations.

In its comment letter, the FTC also argued against ending constructive delivery, at least with respect to vaults, noting that it may be much more cost effective for a cemetery to install vaults in bulk rather than one by one. The FTC noted that consumer demand for pre-need funeral goods and services was growing, but the cumulative effect of the changes proposed by SB 874 would make it less attractive for cemeteries to engage in pre-need sales. SB 874 would “lessen competition, resulting in potentially higher prices and fewer options for consumers, without countervailing benefits to consumers.” Now, let’s see, if consumers continue to demand pre-need funeral goods and services yet the rules make it less attractive for cemeteries to offer those goods and services, where will consumers go? Oh right, the funeral homes.

In fact, the Pennsylvania Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association (PCCFA) argues that SB 874 is a thinly veiled attempt by the state to protect funeral homes from competition from StoneMor Partners. Before StoneMor Partners took over management of the Philadelphia-area Catholic cemeteries in 2013, funeral directors in and around Philadelphia had a monopoly on selling caskets and vaults in the Catholic cemeteries. PCCFA, which represents cemeteries across the state, is understandably upset that a “classic turf war over who can sell caskets and vaults” in the Philadelphia Catholic cemeteries threatens cemeteries and consumers across the state.

Former Pennsylvania Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association President Guy Saxton summed up the response of the Pennsylvania cemetery industry in testimony on the legislation. Directing his comments to Senator Tomlinson, the funeral director who co-sponsored SB 874, Saxton said: “I know you don’t like StoneMor, but I’m not StoneMor. And this bill puts me out of business. And everything I’ve heard today tells me that this bill is not in good faith. It’s not trying to help the consumer, it’s attempting to put StoneMor out of business, and we’re collateral damage.”

Tanya D. Marsh

Arizona Pretends to Reduce but Instead Significantly Raises Barriers to Entry for Cremationists

Arizona House Bill 2613,  approved by the House Commerce Committee last week, proposes to eliminate state licensing requirements for occupations such as fruit packers. Yes, you read that correctly. Under current Arizona law, you may not pack citrus fruit without a license from the state, which will cost you $200 per year. Packing citrus fruit without a license will earn you a $500 fine. HB2613 also removes questionable licensing requirements for occupations including yoga instructor, landscape architect, and geologist. The bill is consistent with one of Republican Governor Doug Ducey’s top priorities—to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and consumers. One of Governor Ducey’s policy advisors explained that “[occupational] licensing should be the last option, not the first. … reducing regulations means more money for hardworking Arizonans.”

That sounds great, but HB2613 doesn’t uniformly reduce barriers to entry. In at least one case, it significantly raises them. For at least 300 hardworking cremationists in Arizona, this regulation “reduction” will mean far less money because they will suddenly become unqualified to do their job. Under current Arizona law, only a person licensed as a cremationist can operate a crematory retort and perform the cremation of human remains. HB2613 eliminates the cremationist license, but not the requirement that a licensed person operate a crematory retort and perform cremations—it grants the ability to perform those tasks to another licensed group: funeral directors. HB2613 does so by redefining “funeral directing” to include “operating a crematory retort and performing the actual cremation of human remains.” Arizona law already provides that no one may perform “funeral directing” without a funeral director’s license.

Under current Arizona law, in order to receive a cremationist license, a person must complete a crematory operator’s certificate course, submit a fingerprint card for a background check, have a good moral character, and pay an annual fee of $85 to the Arizona Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers.  

To become a licensed funeral director in Arizona, an applicant must pass the funeral service arts section of the national board examination or the state equivalent examination, pass an examination on funeral director state laws and rules, be of good moral character, pay an annual fee of $85 to the Board and, oh yes, have held an active license as an embalmer for at least one year and have assisted in arranging and directing at least 25 funerals.

To become a licensed embalmer in Arizona, an applicant must pass the funeral service science section of the national board examination or the state equivalent examination, pass an examination on embalmer state laws, have been licensed as an intern for at least one year, have successfully completed an internship program that included assisting in the embalming of at least 25 human bodies, and pay an annual fee of $85 to the Board.

To become a licensed intern in Arizona, an applicant must be a high school graduate, be a graduate of an accredited school of mortuary science, be of good moral character, and pay an annual fee of $85 to the Board.

So, to recap, HB2613, which is designed to implement Governor Ducey’s plan to reduce needless occupational licensing in the State of Arizona, proposes to replace the requirement that people who operate the crematory retort must first take a course on crematory operations with a requirement that people who operate a crematory retort must: (1) graduate from a two-year mortuary school program, (2) complete a one year internship where they must embalm at least 25 bodies, (3) pass the national board examination in funeral service arts and funeral service science, (4) pass two examinations on the laws that apply to funeral directors and embalmers, (5) work as a licensed embalmer for at least one year, and (6) assist in arranging and directing at least 25 funerals. Oh, and we can’t forget that they must continue to pay an annual fee of $85 to the Board.

Unfortunately, Arizona is not alone in its overly aggressive approach to occupational regulation. Nearly 1/3 of U.S. workers must obtain a license from the state to engage in their occupation. In 1950, less than 1/20 of U.S. workers needed a license. It has been estimated that over 1,100 occupations are licensed in at least one state, but fewer than 60 are regulated in all 50 states—clearly the states disagree quite a bit on what occupations require licensing and which do not. It is easy to understand why states may use occupational licensing to protect the public from unqualified doctors and lawyers, but it is a bit harder to understand how state legislatures rationalize requiring a license for hair braiders and florists.

Critics across the ideological spectrum argue that occupational licensing regimes do little to protect consumers from incompetent practitioners and instead raise costs for consumers by stifling competition and imposing barriers to entry. In July 2015, the White House issued a report prepared by the Department of Treasury Office of Economic Policy, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Department of Labor calling for state policymakers to adopt a more “tailored approach” to occupational regulation. For example, the report recommends that states target occupational regulations to closely tie the substantive requirements (like education and experience) with public health and safety concerns. The Institute for Justice has found that occupational licensing regimes “can pose substantial barriers” for those seeking even low and moderate income jobs, particularly for “minorities, those of lesser means and those with less education.” Cremationist seems like a prime example of this phenomenon. Under the guise of reducing regulation, Arizona has transformed a fairly low paying occupation with low barriers to entry into a job that requires a significant investment of time and money to acquire. It is unclear how requiring cremationists to master the art of embalming and graduate from mortuary college (which typically includes no training on operating a crematory retort) protects Arizonans.

Arizona’s cremation rate is among the highest in the country—approximately 70%. Cremation is an attractive option for many people because it is lower in cost and perceived to be more environmentally friendly. Many crematories in Arizona are independent of funeral homes and not owned or managed by funeral directors. (Economists have shown that independent crematories typically charge less than crematories run by funeral directors.) If HB2613 passes in its current form, the future of the independent crematories is uncertain. Governor Ducey’s first official action in January 2015 was to implement a moratorium on new regulatory rulemaking by state agencies. His office’s press release promised that “Governor Ducey’s order will promote and propel job growth by preventing burdensome, antiquated and unnecessary government rules and regulations on private sector employers.” I’m sure that’ll make the soon-to-be-unemployed Arizonan cremationists feel much better.

Tanya D. Marsh

Home Funerals, Rent-Seeking, and Religious Liberty

The death of a family member triggers a flurry of decisions, all of which must be made in a time of great emotional stress. At the center of the decisions is a single question—how should the dead be mourned and memorialized? The “right” answer can vary significantly based on religious beliefs, family politics, social norms, and the economic capacity of the family.

Many families are relieved to be able to hire a funeral director to take care of all of the practical details, but there is a growing interest in “home funerals,” in which human remains are prepared for disposition in the home, rather than at the funeral parlor. As described in a recent New York Times article, remains may be washed and dressed by family, members of a religious community, or a funeral director. Surrendering control of the corpse to a funeral director immediately after death, allowing it to be embalmed, and displaying it in an open casket is often referred to as the “traditional” American funeral, but in fact that has only been the “tradition” for a little over a century. Until the end of the 19^th century, most American funerals were home funerals.

Families may choose home funerals for many reasons. For some, ritually preparing human remains for burial has significant religious implications. For others, it is a last meaningful act of love.  For too many, the “traditional” American funeral, which averages $8,500 plus the cost of the burial plot, is simply beyond their means.

Throughout the world, home funerals are routine and accepted. In the United States, a country that prides itself on religious liberty and the freedom of self-expression, the growing interest in home funerals represents a challenge to the commercial funeral industry. That industry has responded as economics expect, by engaging in classic “rent seeking” behavior and lobbying state legislatures to enact restrictive laws that insulate it from competition. In the case of home funerals, the competition comes from families themselves.

Sixteen states require that human remains be embalmed or refrigerated within a particular time period after death (usually 24-48 hours). (Those states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.) Four of those states (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas) require that human remains be refrigerated below a particular temperature (typically 35-40 degrees). Virginia already requires that human remains be embalmed or refrigerated within 48 hours after death. Virginia State Senator Kenneth Alexander, a funeral director, has proposed Senate Bill 595 to specify that the remains must be refrigerated at a temperature of no more than 40 degrees. This bill has been received with appropriate outrage by funeral consumer advocates and some funeral directors.

Legal requirements that human remains must be embalmed or refrigerated after death are classic examples of industry rent-seeking.  By requiring “refrigeration,” particularly at a specific temperature, rather than simply permitting cooling via dry ice or other means, these states place heavy burdens on families and religious communities that want to care for remains at home.

On the surface, these requirements seem reasonable. Aren’t human remains a health hazard? Don’t these laws prevent public health nightmares? Actually, it turns out, unembalmed and unrefrigerated human remains don’t pose significant public health risks. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that “[t]here is no direct risk of contagion or infectious disease from being near human remains for people who are not directly involved … handling dead bodies.”  The CDC further advises that those directly handling human remains can protect themselves from potential bacteria and viruses by wearing gloves and washing their hands. “The sight and smell of decay are unpleasant,” the CDC advises, “but they do not create a public health hazard.” The World Health Organization (WHO) agrees. “The widespread belief that corpses pose a major health risk is inaccurate. Especially if death resulted from trauma, bodies are very unlikely to cause outbreaks of diseases…”  The WHO also advises that “[d]ead or decayed human bodies do not generally create a serious health hazard, unless they are polluting sources of drinking-water…” The Association Française d'Information Funéraire advises that there are three methods for preserving human remains before final disposition: dry ice, refrigeration, and embalming. The use of dry ice is the “common traditional technique for preservation at home,” the Association reports, and “[i]t gives perfect results in 95% of the cases.”

In a 2009 article, author Max Alexander contrasted the home funeral of his father-in-law and the “traditional” funeral of his father. “Home after-death care is not for everyone or every situation,” Alexander acknowledged, “[but it] occurred to me that if more Americans spent more time with their dead … they would come away with a new respect for life.” In the United States, of all places on earth, families should be able to make the choice of how to care for their own dead without the interference of laws designed to protect no one but a for-profit industry.

Tanya D. Marsh

"Mom and Dad went to Grandma's funeral and all I got was this t-shirt"

"Mom and dad went to grandma's funeral today and all they brought me back was this T-shirt."  Just the thing people want to see as they look around a funeral home.  At least that's what City of Oaks Funeral Home and Cremations hopes.  City of Oaks sells shirts emblazoned with that morbid spin on the classic trope along with other novelty gifts, from hearse Christmas ornaments and autopsy board games to coffin wine holders and "death mints."

Showing levity or anything short of somber attention at a funeral has traditionally been fodder for shock value in comedy or to express disassociation with the moment.  But while most continue to see funerals as a somber occasion, some cultures have found humor and joy in the midst of the passing of a loved one.  Perhaps the most famous example is the rich tradition of jazz funerals in New Orleans.  What started as a precursor to modern burial insurance has transitioned into one of the most distinctive pieces of Americana.  The practice of playing joyful music during times of mourning has been a staple of life and death in New Orleans since the early eighteenth century.

In central and southern Mexico, celebration of the dead centers on November 1st and 2nd: Dia de Los Muertos.  The Day of the Dead celebrates the belief that the gates of Heaven are opened on October 31 and allow the spirits of the dead to visit their loved ones for 24 hours.  Fanciful costumes and culinary delights herald the spirits' arrival.

While Edward Kosmos does not quite go to these extremes at City of Oaks, he hopes that his gift shop gives people five or ten minutes free of grief in a season of life that often feels unbearable.  While he admits that the effort falls flat when the person lying in state died too young, he says that most people smile.  He hopes that brief glimmer of mirth helps people to see that they can get through it.

Blaydes Moore

Preneed Services in Virginia: Where Should the Money Go?

A woman in Richmond, Virginia prepaid over $6,600 for preneed funeral services, which were to include the visitation, chapel, limo, and her burial plot. In a very unfortunate turn of events, the funeral home went out of business when the owner passed away without a designated licensee. More unfortunately, the woman has been unsuccessful in obtaining a refund from the widow or the decedent owner’s estate. This begs the question: can a funeral home in Virginia legally take prepayments for funeral services and put these payments towards other needs, like general operating costs?

Legally, no. Virginia Code § 54.1-2822(A) states that funds received under preneed contracts, unless towards an insurance policy or annuity contract, are to be deposited “in a special account in a bank or savings institution doing business” in Virginia. Further, such funds must be “deposited in separate, identifiable trust accounts setting forth the names of the depositor, the trustee for the person who is the subject of the contract, the name of the person who will render the funeral services and the name of the person who is the subject of the contract.” Va. Code § 54.1-2822(B). Additionally, how the funds are to be held – in trust, insurance, or annuity – needs to be disclosed in the preneed contract. See Virginia Code § 54.1-2820(A)(5), (C). Therefore, the reporters of the situation are correct when they state that this woman’s only remedy may be in the civil courts. If the contract does not state how her funds were to be held, and if the funds weren’t properly deposited and held, the funeral home has broken Virginia law.

Anastasia Fanning

Filing for a Permit for a Crematory in Pennsylvania

In October 2015, a funeral home in Middletown, Pennsylvania applied for a permit with the Department Environmental Protection (“DEP”) in order to establish a crematory in its garage.  In compliance with state law, the funeral home correctly notified Middletown borough’s code and zoning officer of its intent to establish a crematory.  The application is then reviewed within 30 days of receipt to make sure it is complete.  If it is complete, then the DEP commences a technical review, and if the inspection reveals no technical issues, then the DEP drafts a proposal, which is submitted to the PA Bulletin for public comment. 

The funeral home is acting in accordance with Pennsylvania law, which requires that

Every undertaker or proprietor or person in charge of any crematory or furnace or place where any human corpse shall or may be cremated or incinerated, shall, before removing any such corpse to, or receiving any such corpse at, such crematory, furnace or place for cremating or incinerating the same, obtain a permit to cremate or incinerate such corpse from the board or department of health or local health authorities of the city or locality within which such crematory furnace or place is situate.  35 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1121 (West).

Some local citizens are concerned that the crematory will cause odors, toxins, and noise.  However, DEP’s crematorium regulations establish requirements that a crematory must comply with, such as limiting the amount of pollutants it can emit (p.2) and prohibiting a crematory from emitting odors  “in such a manner that the malodors are detectable outside the property of the permittee as specified in 25 Pa. Code § 123.31 (relating to odor emissions).” (p.6)  Additionally, a crematory must maintain records of “visible emission observations and any corrective actions” as well as the number of cremations performed. (p.5).

Brittany Colton

Cemetery Is Punished for Unauthorized Disinterment

In 2011, in Olympia, Washington, a funeral home improperly pulled up cremated remains after discovering they were located on an easement pipe. While the removal and replacement of the cremains was permitted, the funeral home was required to comply with Title 68.50.200 of the Washington State Code, which requires consent of the cemetery and the written consent of the surviving spouse, children, parents or siblings of the decedent. Only when Beth Johnson noticed that her loved ones’ remains were moved and complained to Washington’s Department of Licensing did negotiations begin between the Department and the funeral home.

While Johnson is finally able to see justice because the Funeral and Cemetery Board will issue sanctions next week, this story calls for more vigilant oversight of the funeral services industry in Washington. While Washington law requires funeral homes to report the movement of remains, there is clearly no consistent mechanism that enforces this. The main oversight here is that the city of Olympia, while it required the funeral home to move the remains from the easement pipe, neither the city nor the funeral home contemplated any legal obligation to notify families of movement of remains. While the funeral home attempted to comply with the city by moving the remains away from the easement, it was woefully wrong to do so without notifying families—especially given the fact that the funeral home is licensed as is held to a professional standard. At this point the funeral home could receive sanctions anywhere from fines to outright revocation of license. Johnson’s story shows that legal oversight pertaining to cemeteries is generally ignored—even by the funeral services industry itself.

Jasmine  Little

First Muslim Funeral Home in Missouri

The Islamic population in the U.S. is growing; according to a 2011 survey, the number of mosques in the U.S. has grown 74% since 2000. As the Islamic population increases so does the need for Muslim specific services, such as funeral directing and cemeteries. The need is significant in the St. Louis region where an estimated 85,000 Muslims live.

In 2011, Adil Imdad, an environmental and geotechnical engineer who immigrated from Pakistan, enrolled in a St. Louis funeral directing program. Since graduating, Imdad has opened a small Muslim funeral home and has coordinated over 40 funerals.

The cultural gap within the funeral industry is not entirely new. At the end of the Civil War, when the funeral industry was really taking form, the Jewish community began to build their own section. American Jews found logistical problems in relying on the mainstream funeral homes in the preparation and interment process of their dead that were not in line with their ideals.

The Islamic community shares some of these fundamental conflicts with the conventional process. In the Islamic faith embalming and cremation are considered mutilation of the body and are generally forbidden. Body washing and burial preparation are typically performed by the family. Once the body has been washed and wrapped in a white cotton cloth, the deceased is often buried in a wooden casket facing Mecca. Prayers are said at either the mosque or cemetery and are very brief. If possible, burial should take place before sunset on the day of death. These customs often contravene the practices of the typical American funeral home, which are not set up for this type of process.

Imdad, who says his motivation for being in the business is to get “ahead in the heavens,” is now able to assist Muslim families through the funeral process, and at a more reasonable cost than the typical funeral. Muslim families are required to pay between $1,150- 4,500, whereas the average funeral cost in the U.S. is estimated to be in excess of $7,000. As the Islamic population increases it is a certainty that others will follow Imdad and more Muslim specific funeral homes and cemeteries will open.

Shawn Briggs-Seward

Should Funeral Homes Disclose Prices Online?

The Federal Trade Commission has not updated its Funeral Rule regarding price disclosure to consumers since 1994. As a result, all that is required is that funeral homes provide the information via phone or when a customer visits the funeral home. However, this rule does not address the most common way most consumers comparison shop – the Internet.

California requires funeral homes to disclose the same prices the FTC requires them to disclose over the phone or in person on their websites. This will allow consumers to more quickly and easily be able to conduct a price comparison.

The need for online price disclosures is high in this industry. Not only are the people purchasing these services typically very vulnerable due to the highly emotional life event, but this industry has great price variation, even in the same city. The Funeral Consumers Alliance and Consumer Federation of America jointly conducted a survey and found that prices fluctuated as much as 100 to 200 percent for the same services in the same city.

Although it is true in some areas, especially rural less populated communities, there are few providers of these services, it is still important for consumers to be able to have all of the information accessible so they can make a well-informed decision.

The FTC should update its Funeral Rule to conform with the typical price advertising practice that consumers expect. If the FTC’s goal is to protect the vulnerable consumers it is important that its requirements fit with standard consumer practice.  It is very rare that consumers now days will pick up the phone to price shop, especially in this situation where often the need is immediate. As a result, consumers usually simply choose to use the first funeral home they go to or one they have heard of and assume that the prices are comparable to competitors in the area. Since we know this is not true, the FTC should follow California’s lead and create an online price disclosure requirement that would assist consumers in being better informed.

Kaitlin Price