My father then said he would take the original casket with the services offered in the policy and donate the casket to someone’s family who couldn’t afford one and purchase an additional casket. Again they refused. They stated that under a Federal Trade Commission ruling they were not allowed to substitute or upgrade a casket or even separate a casket from the services. (In a recent conversation with the FTC, I have been told there is no such ruling.)
Please note on the enclosed price list of caskets available, there are no Embossed Grey Tharson or Grey Analea Cloth Covered Caskets, as specified on the policy. Since they were not listed, they were not available. Why were they only shown one casket when the policy specifically lists two caskets? How do we know that the one casket offered was one of the two specified in the policy? When asked which one it was, the Tharson or the Analea, they simply say it is the one that goes with the policy. Could it be Tharp-Sontheimer had already made their own substitutions in the caskets when they said they were not allowed to? What gives them the right to make their own substitutions without notification and/or approval of the policyholder?
…After several futile requests were made to have them allow us to pay for a better casket without voiding the rest of the services offered in the policy, my father and sisters, feeling both emotionally and physically drained, did what the funeral homes rely on them to do. They chose a different casket and the services they wished to have and in the end were given an invoice in the amount of $7,916.84 after the $300 credit. The cost of the chosen casket alone was $3,595.00 plus tax. From there they went to see David Rogers’ supervisor and Chairman of the Board, Stephen Sontheimer, at the 4127 S. Claiborne Avenue, New Orleans office to plead their case. Having to deal with my mother’s sudden death combined with five days of little to no sleep while at the hospital, we were all in emotional turmoil. At a time when compassion and understanding were most definitely needed, they found Mr. Sontheimer to be very arrogant, disrespectful and degrading. Mr. Sontheimer refused their repeated request and led them to believe that there was absolutely nothing he could do. Why would the insurance company and/or funeral home not allow you to purchase a different casket without voiding the rest of the benefits of the policy if it were not meant to be a scam of “Bait & Switch” or “Insurance Fraud.” What harm could it do? We are aware of at least one New Orleans funeral home that has allowed such changes.
Enclosed is a copy of the invoice for my mother’s funeral. As you can see, $7,916.84 is a far cry from the $218 he originally paid. There was no credit given for inflation, unless you want to consider the $82 difference in the amount paid and the face value. Do you honestly think that people would have purchased these policies if they would have known that they would be offered inferior merchandise or that all they would have been given was a $300 credit? They could have invested the original $218 in a regular savings account with a minimal interest rate and would have had several thousand dollars after 50 years. If you add the figures for the services originally offered in the policy and their respective costs today, from the Security Funeral Homes price lists and the invoice, the credit figure should have been more like $5,067.00.
My father bought these policies 50 years ago to protect himself and his family from having to face the high costs of funerals and possibly not having the funds to cover them. He did what he thought was right, he bought through an honest agent (his father) and from what he thought was a reputable and trustworthy company, Tharp- Sontheimer. In our extended family alone there are at least eight more of these policies yet to be used.
…Since the purchase of these policies in the ’40s, Tharp-Sontheimer was bought out by Delta Life Insurance, Security Industrial Insurance Company and most recently The Loewen Group for $180 million. It proves that there was and still is definitely a lot of unsuspecting people of Louisiana being swindled out of money. This is very upsetting. Just recently
There was a recent suit between Tessier and Rabenhorst Funeral Home and Insurance where the appeals court ruled in favor of Tessier in a matter very similar to ours. There are also two other families I am aware of that are filing suits. Not everyone has the funds to file civil suits nor the stamina to follow through on their complaints when all they get are reply letters or people telling them that “it’s not my job.” Everyone keeps passing the “Buck.” Most of the complaints have fallen through the cracks of Louisiana politics. When is this going to stop? When are Louisiana politicians going to stop their crooked ways and stand up for the people of Louisiana?
I hope you will use your resources and do a thorough investigation into this matter. You might be surprised how widespread this problem is in Louisiana. It is going to take new state laws governing the insurance and funeral industry to protect the people of Louisiana from these fraudulent activities. Teresa Fox, who lives in Kenner and also has a similar complaint, has been trying to get help for the past two years and has contacted her representative, Glenn Ansardi. Maybe if we all work together, it won’t take another 20 years before changes can be made….
This situation in Louisiana may serve as an example of problems elsewhere. Lee Norrgard, consumer affairs analyst for AARP, has been monitoring the problems of prepaid funerals. In
The
Anyone who has paid for a funeral—or is thinking about it—should ask, “Where is the money invested and is it safe?” There are several ways to handle funeral financing in advance, some safer than others.
When you make out a check to the mortuary to pay for a pre-need funeral, there is
Few states require that all prepayments be placed in trust. Fewer still do any auditing. This is particularly true of cemetery prepayment and perpetual-care funds. The cemetery owners generally have unrestricted access, which accounts for the scandalously high incidence of misappropriation of endowment care funds. Without conscientious auditing, there can be no assurance that prepaid funds are safe. California, which is one of the few states that require 100 percent trusting of funeral prepayments, also leads the nation in the incidence and the magnitude of the thievery.
Perhaps most at risk are those in small towns—where everyone knows everyone—who place great trust in the local funeral director. In 1977, after receiving an estimate of $587 for the simple funeral she wanted, Annie Patterson sent a note to the man she thought of as “her” funeral director:
I will be sending a little each month as I am living on Social Security.
Annie told her children that “it was all taken care of,” and—because she was a meticulous and responsible person—no one doubted her.
When Annie died almost twenty years later, “her” funeral director had already passed away. A son had taken over the business, but Annie’s family felt comfortable calling the small-town funeral home she had trusted for her final care. The first sign of trouble came when they were told, “You know it will be more than $587, don’t you?”
