Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funeral Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Funeral industry split as committee considers cutting preneed trust requirement from 90% to 80%
Summary
Senate Bill 5,016 would exclude certain merchandise and transportation protection agreements from preneed trust requirements and reduce the trust deposit required from 90% to 80%. The Washington State Funeral Directors Association opposed the change, while a larger cemetery/funeral association supported it as clarifying and consumer‑friendly.
Senate Bill 5,016 would change how prearranged funeral‑service contracts are treated under state law by excluding certain funeral merchandise delivered at the time of sale or within 30 days and by defining "transportation protection agreements" related to the transfer of human remains. The bill also reduces the required portion of cash purchase price that funeral establishments must put into a preneed trust from 90% to 80%, allowing a firm to retain 20% of the cash purchase price.
Megan Mulvihill, staff to the committee, told members the change would exclude merchandise delivered at sale or within 30 days and transportation protection agreements from trust requirements and lower the trust deposit to 80 percent. She said the bill is a companion to House Bill 1005 and contains no differences between the two bills.
Carissa Carlson, testifying for the Washington State Funeral Directors Association, opposed SB 5,016. "This bill is a threat to consumer financial security," Carlson said, arguing that less money placed in preneed trusts could slow refunds on cancellations, reduce consumer control over funds, and advantage large corporate providers while making it harder for families to transfer funds to locally owned funeral homes.
Scott Sheehan, legislative liaison for the Washington Cemetery, Cremation, and Funeral Association, said his association represents a broad set of providers and supports the bill. Sheehan told the committee a virtually identical measure had passed committee last year and argued SB 5,016 would clarify language, reduce consumer confusion between trust and insurance funding options, and allow providers to offer more robust preneed programs.
Representatives asked clarifying questions about differences between the two industry groups and about whether the house version had moved; witnesses and staff said the bills have been considered in prior sessions and the current language reflects industry and regulator input.
The committee heard both opposition and support during public testimony and then closed the hearing on SB 5,016 without a recorded committee vote during this session.
