ILNews

Insurance policy does not fall under Pre-Need Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior Court correctly ruled that a company that sells an insurance policy with the option to assign it to a trust to use the funds for funeral services is not subject to the Pre-Need Act, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

The State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service issued a cease and desist order to Settlers Life Insurance Co. after it determined the company was selling insurance policies that are simultaneously assigned into irrevocable funeral trusts that restrict dispersal of trust funds to funeral expenses designated as pre-paid services or merchandise by I.C. 30-2-13-8 without the certificate of authority required by I.C. 30-2-13-33. The issue came to the board’s attention from Frain Mortuary in Winamac – the mortuary believed Settlers was in violation of the Pre-Need Act.

Evan Hughes bought at $10,000 insurance policy from Settlers, payable upon proof of her death. Because she did not have the funds to pay for her burial, she opted to assign the policy irrevocably to a National Guardian Life Insurance Co. Trust. Upon her death, the insurance proceeds could only be paid for funeral and burial goods and services as listed in the trust.

Frain Mortuary received Hughes’ policy on transfer from Settlers.

After the board issued its order, Settlers filed a petition for judicial review, in which the Marion Superior Court overturned the order, and issued a declaratory judgment stating that the Pre-Need Act does not apply to the type of policy Settlers sells.

The plain language of the Pre-Need Act supports Settlers’ argument that its at-need product is not covered by the Act, Judge John Baker wrote in State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service v. Settlers Life Insurance Company, 49A05-1307-PL-365. Settlers’ product does not obligate it to provide pre-paid services or merchandise; instead, it pays a death benefit for funeral expenses that may be used at any mortuary. Settlers isn’t defined as a seller under the Act, and its product is not designed to cover pre-need purchases, the court held.

“While we agree that Settlers’s product may not meet the needs of those who wish to prepay their funeral expenses, it is because we find that Settlers sells a product that fulfills a different purpose than pre-need products. It is not a product for those who wish to pre-purchase their funeral services; it is a product that is meant to provide funds to purchase funeral expenses on an at-need basis,” he wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT