As you can read in this recent article from the Insurance NewsNet a plaintiff in Arkansas is alleging that Globe Life “routinely canceled small life insurance policies when confronted with claims”.  The article goes on to say that “The small policies, generally $5,000 to $20,000, are sometimes known as “burial” policies and commonly cover funeral costs, medical and other debts. They are popular in the South and Midwest, where funerals are a strong cultural tradition.”

In more information supplied from an Arkansas law firm the case was described in this manner:

“A class action lawsuit was filed against Globe Life in federal court in the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging that Globe Life routinely cancels or rescinds small life insurance policies—typically ranging from $5,000 to $20,000—when beneficiaries file claims. These “burial policies” are often purchased to cover funeral expenses, medical bills, and other final costs.

According to the complaint, Globe Life:

• Asks vague or overly broad health questions when selling policies.
• Later conducts exhaustive reviews of the insured’s medical history after death.
• Uses minor or unrelated health issues as a pretext to deny claims.

 

The compliant alleges these practices violate Arkansas law, which since 2011 has prohibited insurers from rescinding policies unless they can prove fraud or a material misrepresentation directly related to the cause of death.”

Funeral Director Daily take: From my perspective I’m under the assumption that policies that are known as “Burial” policies or “Final Expense” policies are not sold under the purview of what most funeral homes and funeral directors would label “PreNeed” policies.  That, however, does not mean that those types of policies are not sold by their companies for the purpose of paying for future Death Care expenses by general agents outside of the business of Death Care.

It also doesn’t meant that consumers don’t buy those policies with the idea that they will have their family use at least some of the insurance proceeds for Death Care expenses.

There are some big differences though between what I would suggest as proper PreNeed policies and some types of policies offered by companies as “Burial” or “Final Expense” policies.

In a nutshell I would look for a PreNeed policy to be of the “whole life” variety where it is not canceled because premiums got too expensive as a policyholder’s age increases.  Preferably for PreNeed policies it is my opinion that “Single Premium” whole life policies are best  —  there is no possibility of one of these ypes of policies lapsing for lack of premium payments.

Secondly, I would look to align with a company where once the policy was accepted under the terms of the contract the reason or cause of death would make no difference as to the claim payment.

Funeral Director Daily will watch this lawsuit play out and inform our readers what happens.  In the meantime I think it is imperative that consumers get life-time protection and assurances from the PreNeed policies sold through funeral homes.  It might be a good time to check on the policies and provider that your funeral home teams up with.

Related Article —  Arkansas lawsuit filed over canceled “Burial” life insurance policies sold by Globe Life.   Cision PR Newswire

More news from the world of Death Care: 

Enter your e-mail below to join the 3,201 others who receive Funeral Director Daily articles daily

“A servant’s attitude guided by Christ leads to a significant life”

A British Columbia woman is suing a Port Coquitlam funeral home for failing to properly care for the body of her deceased 91-year-old father.

The plaintiff, Nooshin Mozafar, claims in her lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court, that the wrong body was transferred to a mosque for cleaning and wrapping, according to Muslim rituals, in preparation for burial, according to a recent story in the Tri-City News.

Mozafar claims when she went to the mosque to view her father’s body, she was shocked to find the wrong person had been delivered.

“Upon unwrapping the body, it became abundantly clear to the Plaintiff that the body was not that of the deceased,” the lawsuit claims.

Despite her objections that it wasn’t her father, Mozafar claims in her lawsuit that she was “repeatedly told” that she was mistaken and it was her deceased father, who had died in Lions Gate Hospital on Nov. 4, 2021.

Mozafar was eventually allowed examine the body to show that it wasn’t her father “through identification of specific body parts,” which convinced the mosque that the wrong body had been delivered.

She is suing Vancouver Coastal Health, Heath Transfer Services Inc. and the family-owned Oliveira Funeral Home in Port Coquitlam for failing to properly care for the body of her deceased father.

Oliveira Funeral Home had contracted Heath Transfer to transport the body to the mosque, according to the legal action, and Vancouver Coastal Health was responsible for releasing the body to Heath Transfer to be transported to the mosque.

The lawsuit says Heath Transfer and Oliveira eventually “accepted” that there had been a mixup with the deceased’s body and “advised that they would search for it,” the lawsuit says.

The deceased was eventually located after an “exhaustive search” and was buried at Capilano View Cemetery on Nov. 10, 2021.

Mozafar says in her lawsuit that she had been very close to her father and had cared for him until he died in hospital.

No explanation was ever provided to her as to how the mistake was made, which caused her further emotional distress, she claims, adding she suffered nervous shock, post-traumatic stress disorder and other emotional injuries.

The lawsuit claims the defendants were negligent in failing to confirm the identity of the deceased and keep track of the body, and that the defendants were mistaken when they said Mozafar did not recognize her father after he had died.

The defendants “owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to exercise all reasonable care, skill, diligence and competence in the handling and transportation of the deceased,” the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit seeks general damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, special damages, an award for future care expenses, costs and interest.

The claims in the lawsuit have not been proven in court. The defendants will file statements of defence to answer the claims of the legal action.