AZ Funeral Juris study materials
AZ Funeral Juris study resources

The Price List That Didn't Match the Bill

AZ Funeral Juris · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

The Price List That Didn't Match the Bill

A family in Flagstaff selects a direct cremation from Alder & Sons Funeral Home. The general price list they were handed at the arrangement conference shows 'direct cremation - $1,895' and a separate line for 'crematory fee - $325.' The funeral director, Sam, tells them the total will be 'about $2,300' and that the crematory fee 'sometimes varies.' The final statement includes: direct cremation $1,895; crematory fee $395; 'administrative processing' $150; 'transfer of remains' $275; and 'weekend availability' $100. The family was never shown a casket price list because they declined a casket. They paid in full. Two weeks later, the daughter compares the GPL to the statement and complains. Sam says the GPL is 'a starting point' and that the extra charges were 'explained verbally.'

1. Evaluate each charge against the requirement that the general price list govern the arrangement and that prices be disclosed accurately.

Read the worked answer

The GPL is not a menu of suggestions; it is the disclosure document that anchors the transaction. Each line should be tested against what the family was shown and told.

  • Direct cremation $1,895 - matches. No issue.
  • Crematory fee $395 vs. $325 - discrepancy. A $70 increase over the printed GPL is a pricing discrepancy. 'Sometimes varies' is not adequate disclosure of a specific charge; if the fee is variable, the GPL and the arrangement discussion must make the variability and its basis clear.
  • Administrative processing $150 - undisclosed. This charge appears nowhere on the GPL. A fee invented at billing is the clearest violation of the disclosure principle.
  • Transfer of remains $275 - likely undisclosed or double-counted. If transfer is included in the direct cremation package, charging separately is a duplicate charge. If it is separate, it must appear on the GPL and be selected by the family.
  • Weekend availability $100 - undisclosed. Same problem as the administrative fee. A surcharge for timing must be disclosed before the family commits.
  • No casket price list - defensible here. The family declined a casket, so the casket list was not triggered. But the firm should be able to show that the omission was because no casket was offered or selected, not because the list was unavailable.

Sam's 'starting point' characterization is the core error: the GPL is the disclosed price, and verbal explanations do not cure omissions from the written statement the family received.

2. The daughter demands a refund of the disputed amounts. What should the firm do, and what should it change to prevent recurrence?

Read the worked answer

Resolution. The firm should reconcile the statement line by line against the GPL. For charges that were not disclosed on the GPL and were not knowingly selected by the family - administrative processing and weekend availability - the firm should refund them. For the crematory fee, the firm should either honor the printed $325 or show the family documentation that the higher fee was disclosed and agreed before the arrangement was finalized; absent that, refund the $70 difference. The transfer charge should be refunded if it duplicates a package inclusion. A prompt, itemized refund with a written explanation is far cheaper than a complaint that ends in an inquiry.

Prevention.

  • Reconcile GPL to invoice. Every line on the statement should map to a GPL line or to a documented selection. Anything that cannot be mapped should not be billed.
  • Script the variability. If a crematory fee can change, the GPL and the arrangement script should state the current amount and the conditions of change, and the family should initial the figure.
  • Ban verbal-only additions. No charge should be added at billing that was not presented in writing at arrangement.
  • Train and audit. Sam's belief that the GPL is 'a starting point' is a training failure. Periodic file audits comparing GPL, authorization, and final statement catch this pattern before a family does.
  • Keep the casket list available even when declined, so the firm can demonstrate it was offered.