trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/TXneu_ynnhYIvuMn40_oOA2 content
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform

 /


Looking for more?

Contact Us

Request a Demo

You're one step closer to unlocking our suite of comprehensive and robust tools.

Fill out the form so we can connect you to the right person.

If your company has a current subscription with S&P Global Market Intelligence, you can register as a new user for access to the platform(s) covered by your license at Market Intelligence platform or S&P Capital IQ.

  • First Name*
  • Last Name*
  • Business Email *
  • Phone *
  • Company Name *
  • City *
  • We generated a verification code for you

  • Enter verification Code here*

* Required

In This List

District court orders PNC Bank to pay $102M over role in funeral insurance fraud

Street Talk Episode 56 - Latest bank MOE shows even the strong need scale to thrive

South State CenterState MOE Shows Even The Strong Need Scale To Thrive

Talking Bank Stocks, Playing The M&A Trade With Longtime Investor

Report: Kashkari Says Fed In Holding Pattern But Rate Cut Still Possible


District court orders PNC Bank to pay $102M over role in funeral insurance fraud

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in July ordered PNC Bank NA and National City Bank to pay $72 million in compensatory damages, $15 million in interest, and $15 million in punitive damages for its role in an alleged funeral contract insurance scam.

The two banks intend to appeal the judgement.

A jury in March 2015 ordered PNC Bank, as successor of Allegiant Bank, to pay $391 million for failing to supervise the assets of National Prearranged Services, which offered prepaid funeral plans before its collapse. Allegiant Bank was the trustee from 1998 to 2004. Plaintiffs alleged National Prearranged Services misled them into thinking their funds would be placed in a trust and be backed by life insurance policies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in October 2017 partially reversed the ruling, which limited the damages that can be awarded to plaintiffs. The appeals court otherwise affirmed the judgement and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.