Meyer v. Nottger
241 N.W.2d 911, 1976 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 995 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages for severe emotional distress can be recovered for both the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and for a breach of contract for funeral services, even in the absence of physical trauma, because such contracts are personal in nature and emotional harm is a foreseeable consequence of a breach.
Facts:
- After Lloyd Meyer’s father and stepmother died in a car accident, funeral director LeRoy Nottger was hired to handle arrangements.
- Nottger falsely told Meyer that his stepmother had survived his father, suggesting Meyer had no authority over his father's funeral arrangements.
- Nottger insisted Meyer purchase an expensive sealer casket, claiming it was necessary to contain a harsh odor from the body, a claim that later proved to be false.
- Nottger initially refused the family's request to view the body, describing it as gruesomely injured and having a noxious odor. After the family's attorney intervened, the family viewed the body and found it was not in such condition.
- Nottger agreed to wait for the Meyer family after the funeral service so they could lead the procession to the cemetery.
- While the Meyer family was briefly away from the church after the service, Nottger's assistant left with the hearse for the cemetery without them.
- While attempting to catch up with the hearse, Meyer became ill and suffered an acute myocardial ischemia (a heart attack), which his doctor later attributed to the stress from the events surrounding the funeral.
- Nottger also misrepresented his relationship with another mortician the family had requested and dismissed the pallbearers contrary to the family's wishes.
Procedural Posture:
- Lloyd W. Meyer filed a petition against LeRoy Nottger in a state trial court.
- Meyer's amended petition asserted two claims: one for tortious conduct (intentional infliction of emotional distress) and one for breach of contract.
- Nottger filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case without a trial.
- The trial court sustained Nottger's motion, dismissed Meyer's petition, and entered judgment for Nottger.
- Meyer, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a funeral home's alleged series of misrepresentations, broken promises, and mishandling of funeral arrangements create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to support claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract, allowing for the recovery of damages for severe emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Rees, J.
Yes. A funeral home's conduct can give rise to triable claims for both intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract where the actions cause severe emotional harm. For the tort claim, the court applied the four-part test from Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., requiring: (1) outrageous conduct, (2) intent or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress, (3) severe emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff, and (4) causation. The court found that Nottger's cumulative actions—misrepresenting the survivor, forcing the casket choice, refusing to allow the family to see the body, and leaving the family behind—could be considered 'conduct exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by decent society' by a trier of fact. For the contract claim, the court established that a contract for funeral services is not a standard commercial contract. Because it deals with 'matters of mental concern and solicitude,' mental anguish is a foreseeable result of a breach. Therefore, damages for severe emotional distress are recoverable for the breach of the implied promise to perform funeral services in a workmanlike manner, even without physical trauma.
Analysis:
This case is significant for expanding contract law in Iowa by recognizing a special category for highly personal contracts, such as those for funeral services. It carves out an exception to the general rule that precludes recovery for mental anguish in breach of contract claims, aligning Iowa with a growing number of jurisdictions. By holding that emotional distress is a foreseeable consequence of a botched funeral, the decision allows plaintiffs to recover for the primary type of harm suffered in such situations. The case also affirms that a pattern of misconduct, rather than a single act, can collectively constitute 'outrageous conduct' sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
