Gray Brown-Service Mortuary, Inc. v. Lloyd
1999 Ala. LEXIS 37, 729 So. 2d 280, 1999 WL 14704 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In cases involving the desecration of human remains, a substantial general damages award that does not differentiate between compensatory and punitive damages may be upheld if the defendant's conduct was sufficiently egregious and there is ample evidence of the plaintiff's severe emotional distress.
Facts:
- In 1990, Fred Lloyd and his wife, Faye Lloyd, purchased a double-crypt space from Gray Brown-Service Mortuary, Inc. for their eventual entombment.
- After Faye Lloyd died unexpectedly in 1991, her body was placed in a sealed casket and entombed in the crypt.
- To facilitate placement, employees of Gray Brown-Service placed BBs on the floor of the crypt space, which eventually caused pin-sized perforations in the bottom of the casket.
- By 1992, the mausoleum developed a strong odor of decomposition, which Gray Brown-Service initially dismissed. In 1993, an employee discovered fluids from Faye Lloyd's decomposing body leaking from her crypt.
- Without notifying or seeking permission from Fred Lloyd, Gray Brown-Service employees secretly disinterred the casket at night, pried it open with a crowbar, and poured a caustic chemical called Viserock onto Faye Lloyd's remains.
- Weeks later, again without permission, employees reopened the crypt, removed Faye Lloyd's remains from the original casket, placed them in a plastic body bag with more Viserock, and put the bag inside a different casket.
- The original casket, which still contained some of Faye Lloyd's bodily fluids and tissues, was dumped in a wooded area and later buried in an unmarked grave.
- Gray Brown-Service informed Fred Lloyd only that there had been a 'minor problem with a leak' that had been professionally handled.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred Lloyd sued Gray Brown-Service Mortuary, Inc. and Chapel Hill Funeral Home, Inc. in an Alabama trial court.
- At trial, all parties, including Gray Brown-Service, agreed to the use of a general verdict form that would not separate compensatory from punitive damages.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Chapel Hill, and a general verdict against Gray Brown-Service in the amount of $2 million.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict.
- Gray Brown-Service filed a motion for a remittitur of damages, which the trial court denied.
- Gray Brown-Service, as appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of its remittitur motion to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a $2 million general jury verdict, which does not distinguish between compensatory and punitive damages, excessive for claims arising from the egregious mishandling, unauthorized disinterment, and desecration of a deceased person's remains?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the $2 million general verdict is not excessive. Alabama law has long held that the mistreatment of human remains supports recovery for mental suffering. The facts demonstrate that Gray Brown-Service's conduct was egregious, including a clandestine disinterment, prying the casket open with a crowbar, desecrating the remains with chemicals, and deceiving the family. There was ample evidence of Fred Lloyd's severe emotional distress, including anger, misery, and nightmares. Because Gray Brown-Service expressly requested a general verdict form, it cannot now complain about the inability to determine a precise ratio of compensatory to punitive damages, and the evidence could support a high compensatory award for mental anguish, making the total award reasonable.
Dissenting - Hooper, C.J.
Yes, the damages awarded are excessive. Regardless of whether the verdict was general or itemized, the $2 million award is clearly unjustified and grossly excessive when viewed in light of the standards established in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore.
Concurring - Houston, J.
No, the verdict is not excessive. The author posits that a compensatory award of $500,000 for severe emotional distress would not be excessive, and a corresponding punitive damages award of three times that amount ($1.5 million) would also be permissible. Since the total $2 million verdict falls within this constitutionally acceptable ratio, the award should be affirmed.
Concurring - Lyons, J.
No, the verdict is not excessive. Gray Brown-Service requested and approved the use of a general verdict form. In doing so, it frustrated the application of the strict-scrutiny analysis typically applied to mental anguish damages and cannot now challenge the verdict on that basis.
Concurring - See, J.
No, the verdict is not excessive. While a court should typically allocate a general verdict into compensatory and punitive damages for appellate review, a remand is unnecessary here. The trial court's order and the egregious facts of the case indicate that the evidence could justify a compensatory damages award for the full $2 million, rendering the entire verdict supportable without needing to consider a punitive component.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal principle that extreme and outrageous conduct involving the desecration of human remains can justify very large damage awards for mental anguish. It also serves as a significant procedural warning to defendants: agreeing to a general verdict form that combines compensatory and punitive damages can severely limit the ability to challenge the award's composition on appeal. The court demonstrated a willingness to uphold a large, un-itemized verdict where the defendant's conduct was particularly reprehensible, signaling that the sacredness of burial rites is a deeply protected interest.
Unlock the full brief for Gray Brown-Service Mortuary, Inc. v. Lloyd