On January 13, 1999, The Justice Department approved a request through National Selected Morticians allowing family-owned funeral homes to cooperate in obtaining cheaper caskets by joining together to buy them at bulk discounts.
The National Selected Morticians is a trade association that represents (at the time of this writing) 865 of the mom-and-pop funeral homes. NSM members own 6.3 percent of the nation's funeral homes.
They claim to be facing stiff price-cutting from direct retail sellers of caskets and from corporate funeral home chains that have obtained quantity discounts from casket manufacturers, the independent, family-owned funeral homes sought permission from the department's antitrust division to engage in joint purchasing to get similar discounts. This would allow them to compete better for price-sensitive funeral business.
I guess the casket store comes in handy when your trying to BS the Justice Dept..
I wonder if they are going to pass the savings on to the consumer?
Consumer Casket has been claiming to be a member of the National Casket Retailers Association when in fact, they have never been a dues paying member. Consumer Casket's web service provider removed the false claim from their web site last month after being notified. If you hear of any other misrepresentations please let us know.
The Joke of the Month
An article in the January 11, 1999 Funeral Service Insider titled "Could this be a trend? Casket stores take a couple of recent hits" attempts to explain the rationale a Funeral Director might be able to use to encourage regulation of casket stores in their state.
1. "Consumers need protection."
2. "Prohibiting non-funeral directors from selling caskets helps to prevent the
spread of communicative diseases, because unregulated parties may not handle caskets
properly."
3. "The need to ensure the accuracy of death statistics requires only funeral
directors to sell caskets"
I hope these stupid statements came from the editor. Even the funeral industry is smarter than that. Aren't they?
The following two stories were copied from FAMSA's web site with permission
Georgia Casket Store Wins
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WITH NOTICE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65, came before me regularly to be heard on November 2, 1998.
Defendants were notified in advance, filed a written brief, and appeared at the hearing through counsel. At the hearing, all parties presented evidence and argued.
Based on the evidence, argument, and entire record, the Court finds as follows:
(1) there is a substantial likelihood of success by plaintiffs on the merits inasmuch as it appears that the law in question, O.C.G.A. 43-18-1, et seq., purports to make the unlicensed sale of caskets and alternative containers for human remains unlawful only by implication resulting in a substantial likelihood of unconstitutional vagueness and it appears that the purported prohibition on the sale of caskets and alternative containers is not rationally related to legitimate state interest;
2) there is a substantial threat of irreparable injury to plaintiffs if defendants are not enjoined;
(3) the threatened injury to the plaintiffs outweighs the injury to the nonmovants; and
(4) the injunction would not disservice the public interest.
Regarding the giving of security as provided in Rule 65(c), the Court finds that there is no risk that defendants will suffer costs and damages from being wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Exercising its discretion, the Court, therefore, will require that plaintiffs give security only in the amount of $1.00. Plaintiffs shall post this amount with the Clerk.
Until further Order of the Court, defendants are hereby RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from taking any action pursuant to O.C.G.A. 43-18-1, et seq., to prevent or restrict plaintiffs or other persons from selling caskets or alternative containers for human remains in Georgia. Defendants may not require funeral director or funeral establishment licensing for the sale of caskets or alternative containers for human remains. This Order applies to all defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of November, 1998.
MARVIN H. SHOOB
Senior Judge
United States District Court
FAMSA web site located at : http://www.funerals.org/famsa
Caskets Protect the Public Health?
Where's the evidence?
When the Stone Casket Company in Oklahoma City began to lose its funeral home clients to large corporations, the folks there decided to sell caskets directly to the public. The state Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors promptly requested an injunction and restraining order.
District Court Judge Amick, however, found that the mortuary board had overstepped its bounds in trying to limit the casket trade and that the state had no compelling interest in restricting who may sell a casket.
Undaunted, the Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors pressed on, and, on October 2, 1998, the Court of Civil Appeals finally granted the injunction.
One has to wonder if Judge Garrett and Judge Joplin-two of the three judges who sit on the Court of Appeals-have been sniffing too much formaldehyde. (Judge Jones had the good sense to dissent.) The decision reads in part:
The State has a legitimate interest in regulating funeral services because those services relate to the preparation and disposal of human remains. Such laws protect the public health and safety of the citizens of Oklahoma. [One certainly can't argue with that, but Stone Casket Company has NO contact with dead bodies whatsoever, only boxes.] Caskets are directly involved in the burial of human remains. A casket is a part of the funeral service business and cannot be separated as an independent item. [Then why does the Federal Trade Commission Funeral Rule have specific language that requires a funeral home to list the price of burial or cremation without a casket-for the consumer who has provided the casket separately and independently?] The casket, in which human remains are buried, directly impacts sanitation. [Really?] (footnote 4)
[The footnote that follows is astonishing in its leap of logic, if one should even use that word.] (4) theoretically, the Oklahoma public could obtain the same casket sold by Casket Company from telephone sales by out of state casket sellers or sales via the Internet without either of these sellers being licensed by the State of Oklahoma. [And save lots of money, too.] It is apparent to this Court that the State of Oklahoma may prohibit the importation into this state of contraband property. This certainly includes caskets which may not comply with construction requirements and fail to prevent contamination of the environment. Licensing is a proper method for enforcement of safety and health rules.
Caskets as contraband property? Casket police? Yikes! And what construction requirements has any state established for the building of caskets? NONE, not even Oklahoma!
But there's a striking new philosophy being perpetrated by the judges for the use of a casket, one I hadn't heard before: "to prevent contamination of the environment." I had always thought the casket was to hold the body, perhaps for the "beautiful memory picture" the industry touts. What scientific evidence do Judges Garrett and Joplin have that indicates that a casket protects the environment? From what contamination? In many countries, Muslims and Jews bury a body directly in the soil. In Europe, when decomposition of the body and wood casket is complete, another body is buried on top. If there is a sweeping and rampant environmental crisis in these countries, it's a well-kept secret. By the way, what about the rancher who buries a dead steer with his backhoe? Will Garrett and Joplin suggest they use a cow casket the next time? For the public health, of course. Judges Garrett and Joplin are apparently willing to put a retail casket company out of business on the basis of casket construction standards the state of Oklahoma MAY or MAY NOT establish in the future (that Stone caskets may or may not meet-who knows), because of their worries about environmental contamination from some yet unknown dangers. Back to the Ouija board, judges, and let's see what else is in the future for justice, Oklahoma style
Th
e above article was copied with permission.from the FAMSA web site located at : http://www.funerals.org/famsaIowa Casket Delivery Refused
Who's putting who out of business?
In July 1997 Affordable Casket Company in Iowa attempted to deliver a casket to a Des Moines, Iowa funeral home but the they allegedly refused to accept the delivery, stating that if the funeral arrangements were to be conducted by the funeral home, then a casket must be purchased by the funeral home. The funeral home then forced the consumer to return the casket to Affordable Casket Co. and buy a higher priced casket.
On December 18, 1998 Affordable Casket Company filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court. According to the complaint, they not only refused the casket but they allegedly made untrue statements to Affordable Caskets customers and potential customers such as: Affordable is operating a funeral service business illegally, selling caskets illegally, illegally selling caskets to the public and was only authorized to sell as a wholesaler, could not sell caskets legally because they were not licensed funeral directors, the casket purchased from Affordable would "fall apart" during the funeral ceremony.
Affordable Casket Co. is now asking the court for a judgment against the funeral home for compensatory and punitive damages
We'll keep you posted!
Phony Casket Seal Claims
(The following is an excerpt from the casket chapter in "Caring for the Dead: Your Final Act of Love," available through the FAMSA bookstore.)
There is no amount of embalming or any particular casket that will preserve a body in a life-like condition forever. But perhaps history has to repeat itself several times before the industry will stop perpetrating such myths.
One of the cases that Melvin Belli won early in his career resulted in a significant sum for a son whose mother rotted in the bronze sealer casket he'd purchased to protect her. Now a Mississippi funeral home and Batesville Casket Company are facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit charging similar casket fraud.
Barbara Osborne had no reservations about spending $4,000 for Daddy's "protective" copper casket. Two months later when she went to place flowers for Father's Day-the casket was "stinking to high heaven." Batesville took four months to respond. A video of the rotting flesh confirmed Barbara's worst fears
"Protective," says the Batesville guarantee that Barbara was given. The Batesville web site goes even further: "The urge to keep our loved ones protected and safe is fundamental to all of us. No wonder so many families are comforted by the ability to protect their loved ones with the Batesville Monoseal protective casket." It's going to keep out air, water, and other elements, we're told.
The dictionary definition of protection is "to keep from harm." Yes, the gasket casket may keep out any bugs that didn't accidentally get closed inside in the first place, but Batesville doesn't bother to reveal that-by keeping air out-a sealed casket (in anything but the most frigid weather) becomes a slow cooker that will turn the body into a smelly stew.
Some funeral directors are awakening to the problems presented by sealer caskets. One recently wrote to Mortuary Management (June '98): "Sealer caskets are in danger of being identified as an alleged consumer fraud that funeral service has been a party to for far too many years. . . . Funeral service should finally divorce itself from this emerging identity."
There's just been a partial settlement of a case in upstate New York involving a casket that was "alleged to be waterproof." The funeral director has agreed to pay $33,000.
Make sure you don't make any false claims and become a part of this scam.
This month we borrowed most of our newsletter stories from the FAMSA web site. We have been getting very few stories from the membership lately. Please send your stories in or we will not be able to send out a newsletter every month.