Two recent opinions illustrate the litigation policy by Plaintiffs’ attorneys of suing an industry member even though that party was not really directly involved with the basis for the lawsuit. Usually the industry member gets out of the litigation, but not without incurring legal expenses and loss of time. Sometimes every other defendant is dismissed from a case and the industry member stays involved because they have resources.
The first opinion was issued by a federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Michigan in the case of Badder v. Schmidt, 2014 WL 4978474. One of the Defendants was Generations Funeral and Cremation Services, Inc. (Generations). According to the facts, the daughter of the Plaintiff was a drug user that died in someone else’s home who did not know the Plaintiff was the next of kin of the deceased. The municipal authorities were contacted, but did not determine that the Plaintiff was the next of kin for over three weeks, even though there was a paper with the Plaintiff’s name in the wallet of the deceased.
When the Plaintiff was finally contacted she made arrangements for the remains to be delivered to Generations for burial. When she requested a viewing, an employee of Generations indicated she should remember her daughter as she was in life and not in a decomposed state. There was no viewing or burial and the remains were subsequently cremated by Generations.
The Plaintiff sued the County, the Medical Examiner’s Office, individual employees and Generations. The primary issue before the Court involved in this opinion was whether the municipal and individual defendants were immune from liability. Generation apparently was able to get out of the lawsuit though the reason was not stated in this opinion.
The second opinion was issued by a Florida District Court of Appeals Judge in the case of SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Munoz, 146 So.3d 1273 (2014). According to the facts the Plaintiff’s contacted a funeral home (“Funeral Home”) in Miami, not related to SCI or the crematory owned by SCI to arrange for the shipment of the their son’s remains to Cuba for a service and burial.
The Funeral Home sent the son’s body to the crematory to be stored in a cooler until the shipping could occur. At the same time the Funeral Home had delivered the remains of another person that were to be cremated. It was alleged that the employees of the Funeral Home had misidentified the remains on the body tags. The result was the wrong body was shipped to Cuba and the son’s remains were cremated. Even though they really were not at fault, SCI became a defendant. The issue before the Court was whether SCI could have punitive damages determined against it. The trial court had ruled that the Plaintiff could assert punitive damages, but the Appeals Court quashed the Order. However, it appears that SCI will continue to be involved in this dispute.
There is no guarantee that a business will not be sued. However, as the author has stated many times every industry members should continue to monitor their employees and businesses. Also, it is important to have proper insurance coverage.