Texas Senate Bill SB1166

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Out of Senate Committee: 3/22/11
• Introduced: 3/4/11
• Voted on by Senate: 3/31/11
• Refer: 3/16/11
• Out of House Committee: 5/2/11
• Report Pass: 3/22/11
• Engrossed: 3/31/11
• Refer: 4/11/11
• Report Pass: 4/28/11

Caption

Relating to prepaid funeral benefits contracts and the prepaid funeral contract guaranty fund.

Impact

The implementation of SB1166 is poised to significantly impact state laws regarding funeral services and consumer rights in Texas. By providing a framework for the guarantee of prepaid funeral contracts, the legislation aims to offer financial security to consumers, safeguarding their investments in funeral services. The bill addresses scenarios where funeral providers may fail to fulfill their contractual obligations, thus providing a mechanism for compensation through the guaranty fund. As a result, individuals entering into these contracts can expect a higher level of protection and assurance that their funds will be secure, contributing to greater trust in the industry.

Summary

SB1166 pertains to the regulation and management of prepaid funeral benefits contracts and establishes a guaranty fund aimed at protecting consumer interests. The bill amends the Finance Code to enhance the framework through which prepaid funeral benefits can be guaranteed, expanding the guidelines for the administration of these contracts. An important feature of the bill is its provision for an advisory council that will oversee the operation and maintenance of the fund, which includes different stakeholders such as industry representatives and a consumer advocate. This council is mandated to enhance transparency and ensure proper accountability in managing the fund's resources.

Contention

Some points of contention surrounding SB1166 include the potential burden it may impose on funeral providers and the prepaid funeral industry in general. Critics of the bill voiced concerns that the regulatory measures might lead to increased costs for providers, ultimately impacting the prices of services offered to consumers. Additionally, the flexibility of the advisory council's meeting practices, allowing both open and closed sessions, raised discussions about transparency and public access to important operational decisions regarding the fund. Stakeholders are divided on whether the proposed consumer protections justify the potential regulatory burdens on providers, creating a space for vigorous debate as the bill moves through the legislative process.