the often-forgotten nonfuneral consumer grief for the grieving

ELIZABETH TAYLOR QUILLIAM

The Often-Forgotten Nonfuneral Consumer Grief forthe Grieving

Consumer protection advocates and resulting government regulation ofthe death care industry tend to focus on the most obvious problems,those caused by deceptive sales practices of funeral service providers.However, a spotlight on the funeral’s large expenses overshadows themyriad of other consumption activities that heirs must undertake. Sur-vivors must navigate confusing complex situations for which they areunprepared, at a time when grief increases their vulnerability.

Consumer protection advocates and resulting government regulation of

the death care industry tend to focus on the most obvious problems, those

caused by deceptive sales practices of funeral service providers. However,

a spotlight on the funeral’s large expenses overshadows the myriad of other

consumption activities that heirs must undertake. The responsibility for

unwinding the material aspects of someone’s life often falls to family mem-

bers who are unlikely to have prior experience or readily available and use-

ful information to guide them through this maze (Kopp and Kemp 2007).

Moreover, these tasks confront grieving, vulnerable individuals, com-

pounding the challenges (Gentry et al. 1995b).

Of the 2.5 million deaths in the United States in 2005, eighty-three per-

cent were individuals aged fifty five or older (U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services 2008). It is reasonable to assume that many of them

had established bank accounts, acquired homes and mortgages, financed the

purchase of automobiles and other high ticket items, routinely used credit

cards, purchased life insurance, invested, paid taxes, and engaged in a mul-

titude of financial transactions. In short, they were consumers. Upon death,

they left bills unpaid, life insurance benefits to be claimed, investments to

liquidate, and property to sell. Yet little attention has been paid to protecting

Elizabeth Taylor Quilliam is an assistant professor in the Department of Advertising, Public Rela-

tions, & Retailing, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI ([email protected]).

The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008

ISSN 0022-0078

Copyright 2008 by The American Council on Consumer Interests

FALL 2008 VOLUME 42, NUMBER 3 471

the interests of consumers after death or protecting their executors, admin-

istrators, and heirs.

GRIEF AND VULNERABILITY

Baker, Gentry, and Rittenburg (2005) define consumer vulnerability as

a condition, not a personal characteristic. It is experienced as a lack of con-

trol arising from the interaction of individual states, personal characteristics,

and external conditions. The death of a family member or other loved one

can result in disorientation and instability, increasing the affected individ-

ual’s vulnerability, and reducing his or her ability to make decisions or con-

duct routine consumer activities. Yet a grieving family member charged

with the responsibility for settling an estate cannot escape the consumer role.

Recognition of the fragile state of mourners is the foundation for the

Funeral Industry Practices Rule of the Federal Trade Commission (Kopp

and Kemp 2007). Misrepresentation is expressly prohibited, and informa-

tion disclosures are mandated. Consumers do not, however, engage in

extensive information processing while in the transition, or liminal, state

of grief (Gentry et al. 1995a). They may not read disclosures, nor are they

likely to explore alternatives (Kopp and Kemp 2007). The physical, cog-

nitive, and behavioral symptoms of grief interrupt routine patterns of

behavior, complicating death-related decisions (Gentry et al. 1995a). Thus,

the minimal level of protection afforded by the Funeral Rule has been crit-

icized as being insufficient (Kopp and Kemp 2007). Yet the funeral marks

the beginning of a lengthy process that heirs must navigate, and consumer

protection may, in fact, be greatest at this point, given the existence of

explicit, although imperfect, regulations.

Grief is not marked by a specific time frame. There is no set period after

which the effects of grieving diminish. Grief-related vulnerability eventu-

ally lessens, but during the liminal period, individuals have limited desire or

ability to protect their own interests. Decision making is impaired, and sus-

ceptibility to fraud is enhanced (Baker, Gentry, and Rittenburg 2005). Grief

is not gender specific, although it is possible that the challenges addressed

here disproportionately affect women. In 2005, the average life expectancy

of an American male was 75.2 years, while females could expect to live, on

average, 80.4 years (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2008).

The result is an increase in the number of widows, who may be financially

unprepared for life after the loss of a spouse (Hatcher and Tanwar 2006),

which tops the list of stressful life events (Holmes and Rahe 1967) and

further exacerbates vulnerability.

472 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

INFORMATION VOID

Concurrent with the increasing number of deaths in the United States is

the increased likelihood that individuals, rather than institutions, will be

named to settle estates (Fleming 1997; Wilson 1997). These individuals

are frequently relatives, often spouses or children of the deceased, with little

or no training or preparation. The dearth of readily accessible information,

confounded by the vulnerability accompanying grieving, leaves them in

a disadvantaged situation compared to companies routinely handling

numerous similar transactions. Even seemingly simple transactions can

quickly become complex, fraught with nuances that the inexperienced

are unlikely to detect.

Faced with numerous financial responsibilities, bills to pay, tax returns to

file, and other associated tasks, most consumers can be expected to be at

a loss for direction, and the answers to their questions may not be clear-cut.

More importantly, there is no easy method for obtaining guidance. Estate

settlement requires a variety of encounters that draw on disparate knowl-

edge and occur over an extended period of time (O’Donohoe and Turley

2006). Most of the individuals taking on these responsibilities cannot learn

from experience, as they are unlikely to face these challenges more than

once or twice in a lifetime. The fiduciary obligations, including accounting

to beneficiaries, completing required forms, and filing estate income tax

returns, extend beyond routine consumer transactions. Assistance in some

of these areas is available from accountants or attorneys. But those profes-

sionals do not step in to handle all the daily details, and their services come

at an explicit cost to the estate or the survivors.

Moreover, consumers may not want to know how to handle all the details

involved in estate settlement, even when they are charged with that respon-

sibility. As noted in a recent editorial in this journal (Rotfeld 2008), there

are limitations to how consumers can and will protect themselves. They are

not prepared to be experts in every aspect of daily life, so is it reasonable to

expect them to be experts in handling the wide array of tasks associated

with estate settlement? Even with adequate information, incorrect decisions

can be made. With information not readily available, and grief clouding

normal decision-making capabilities, less than optimal choices are likely.

CUSTOMER SERVICE AFTER DEATH

Before paying out on a $2,000 life insurance claim, one company

demanded that a beneficiary authorize release of the deceased’s medical

records, attributing the request to ‘‘legal requirements.’’ The insured


was ninety-two years old. The insurance company had a copy of the cer-

tified death certificate listing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

(COPD) as the cause of death, a natural cause that was not excluded under

the terms of the policy. The company representative did not know if the

beneficiary was the executor, had been granted medical power of attorney

for the insured, or in fact had any legal standing to authorize the release of

these medical records.

In this example, the beneficiary concluded that the company’s request

was unreasonable and unnecessary; the company was placing obstacles app-

arently intended to slow the outflow of funds. The beneficiary ultimately

prevailed, and the claim was paid without further medical documentation

but only after numerous telephone calls and customer service escalations.

A telecommunications company, upon notification of the death of a cus-

tomer, issued a past-due notice for the final bill. Had the customer still been

alive, the monthly bill would not have been due until fifteen days after the

date the past-due notice was created. The company, however, determined

that after the death of the accountholder, the balance became due imme-

diately and the account was considered to be in default. The executor paid

the ‘‘past-due’’ telephone bill immediately from estate funds, before any

accounting of other outstanding obligations was conducted. The phone

company got its payment; fortunately, there were sufficient funds to satisfy

all other creditors later.

Another telecommunications company billed a senior citizen for long-

distance access for nearly three years, during a time when the telephone

number associated with the service had been disconnected. After this con-

sumer’s death, the executor attempted to arrange a refund of the erroneous

payments. The company claimed that by virtue of its tariff it could not

legally authorize any refund. This long-distance telephone overbilling

problem was resolved only after a local newspaper consumer affairs

reporter took an interest and contacted the company.

A surviving adult child contacted a financial services company with

which a deceased consumer had held substantial investments. The heir,

who was not the executor of the estate, requested receipt of copies of

all account statements until the estate was settled and funds disbursed.

The investment company initially agreed to comply with this request, later

withdrawing its approval after being contacted by the executor and asked to

refrain.

In each of these situations, the executor or beneficiary was required

to make decisions and take actions with incomplete information, based

on no prior experience. The companies, on the other hand, presumably

had handled these types of issues numerous times in the past. The power


inequality inherent in these, and similar, situations compounds the already

complex tasks facing an executor or trustee (Kopp and Kemp 2007; Rotfeld

2008).

It may be that the obstacles are not intentional efforts by companies to

reduce expenses, but rather a result of lack of planning for such eventual-

ities. The company that misspells the name of a deceased loved one or sends

correspondence to that individual even after notification of death is prob-

ably guilty of simple inattention to detail. Yet those details can gain

increased magnitude in the minds of mourning relatives, adding unneces-

sary stress. Ultimately, a lack of attention to customer service may not only

affect the grieving survivors but could also cost the company business

(Quilliam 2008).

IS THERE A SOLUTION?

Effective financial education can begin to resolve some of the basic

issues surrounding end of life, much as it provides a foundation for

enhanced consumer financial literacy in general (Kozup and Hogarth

2008; Rotfeld 2008). But it is unrealistic to expect consumers to embrace

such lessons simply to aid in estate settlement when they are already unwill-

ing to face the realities of their loved ones’ future deaths, not to mention

reluctant to acknowledge or address their own financial literacy.

Kozup and Hogarth (2008) proposed a triage model that accommodates

a variety of financial situations and offers assistance to consumers. The

model acknowledges the confusing array of financial products and deci-

sions facing consumers and incorporates self-determination, professional

advice and counsel, and aid from specialists. Such a model could be

expanded to offer a similar three-step approach to estate settlement require-

ments. Consumers could be expected to handle some of the more routine

and simple transactions, such as final payments of utility bills, on their own.

This type of transaction is replicated in their daily lives, although additional

record keeping may be required when it is undertaken as part of estate set-

tlement. For the most complex issues, such as selling a home, disposing of

valuable possessions, or liquidating investments, specialist intervention

may be needed. In between rests a diverse assortment of tasks that could

benefit from professional assistance, such as arranging and paying for

funerals and other death care services, filing estate income tax returns,

or settling routine life insurance claims. A professional could also provide

assistance in understanding and dealing with information privacy, record

keeping and retention requirements, and other somewhat complex but not

extraordinary functions.


Companies, too, should be encouraged to address death-related policies

and procedures, particularly in customer service settings. The often adver-

sarial relationship compounds an already difficult role played by the trustee

or executor. Rather than presenting obstacles to a reasonable resolution,

a compassionate and accommodating approach would benefit both the

consumer and the firm. Streamlined processes, with clearly established

procedures and accompanying information, would ease the burden on

the survivors and could bode well for future business for the company

(Quilliam 2008). Such self-regulation could mitigate the need for further

policy interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Americans do not like to talk about death. We do not want to think about

death. We do not, overall, do a very good job of planning for the end of life

(Kopp and Kemp 2007). In our consumer society, although, the need for

someone to manage posthumous affairs will not go away; it increasingly

falls to family members or friends who are unprepared for the responsibil-

ities. Indeed, consumers are often reluctant, uninformed, or uninterested in

dealing with their own routine financial requirements. When loved ones

die, these same consumers are often required to manage someone else’s

affairs at a time when they are least able to handle the added responsibil-

ities. Recognizing the special vulnerability that accompanies grief, and

addressing it in conjunction with other financial literacy issues, can help

ease their burdens. The private sector has not met the challenge. Too many

companies ignore these circumstances, and there are no explicit policies in

place to protect consumers when the voluntary private sector actions prove

to be ineffective or nonexistent. There is no objective research to guide

industry representatives and policy makers. There is no one-size-fits-all

solution, particularly given the wide variety of types of businesses and tasks

involved. As researchers and policy makers address the larger, more visible

issues related to the funeral, it is imperative that the more mundane, routine

end-of-life responsibilities be included as well. Vulnerable, grieving heirs

deserve guidance, compassion, and protection.

REFERENCES

Baker, Stacey Menzel, James W. Gentry, and Terri L. Rittenburg. 2005. Building Understanding of

the Domain of Consumer Vulnerability. Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (2): 128–139.

Fleming, Peter D. 1997. Helping Executors and Trustees Help Themselves. Journal of Accountancy,

184 (4): 40–41.


Gentry, James W., Patricia F. Kennedy, Catherine Paul, and Ronald Paul Hill. 1995a. Family Tran-

sitions during Grief: Discontinuities in Household Consumption Patterns. Journal of Business

Research, 34 (1): 67–79.

———. 1995b. The Vulnerability of Those Grieving the Death of a Loved One: Implications for Public

Policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14 (1): 128–143.

Hatcher, Charles B. and Manju Tanwar. 2006. Financial Preparation for Widowhood: Evidence from

the Survey of Consumer Finances. Journal of Personal Finance, 5 (3): 87–98.

Holmes, Thomas H. and Richard H. Rahe. 1967. The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journalof Psychosomatic Research, 11 (1967): 213–218.

Kopp, Steven W. and Elyria Kemp. 2007. The Death Care Industry: A Review of Regulatory and Con-

sumer Issues. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 41 (Summer): 150–173.

Kozup, John and Jeanne M. Hogarth. 2008. Financial Literacy, Public Policy, and Consumers’ Self

Protection – More Questions, Fewer Answers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42 (2): 127–136.

O’Donohoe, Stephanie and Darach Turley. 2006. Compassion at the Counter: Service Providers and

Bereaved Customers. Human Relations, 59 (10): 1429–1448.

Quilliam, Elizabeth Taylor. 2008. Sorry for Your Loss, Now When Will We Be Paid? Customer Service

after Death of a Customer. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25 (5): in press.

Rotfeld, Herbert Jack. 2008. Financial Aliteracy. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42 (2): 306–309.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm. (Accessed April

9, 2008)

Wilson, Douglas D. 1997. Providing Guidance to Executors and Trustees. Journal of Accountancy,

184 (4): 37–43.


the often-forgotten nonfuneral consumer grief for the grieving

Documents