Travelers Insurance v. Smith
991 S.W.2d 591, 338 Ark. 81, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 310 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurance company's agent can be held liable for the tort of outrage if their willful and wanton conduct, even when communicated through the family's agents, unreasonably delays the burial of a deceased individual and causes severe emotional distress to the family.
Facts:
- On Friday, August 19, 1994, Alva Smith, a truck driver for Gerald Johnson Trucking, died in a one-vehicle accident in Springdale, Arkansas, during the course of his employment.
- Travelers Insurance Company was notified of the accident and assigned Dan Ray, their adjuster, to the claim.
- The Arkansas State Police and Washington County Coroner's office determined the cause of death was massive head trauma, concluding an autopsy was not necessary.
- Anna Smith, Mr. Smith's wife, requested Sisco Funeral Chapel to handle the funeral and contact Travelers about insurance payment; the family desired a traditional, open-casket funeral.
- Travelers, through Dan Ray, informed the funeral home that they required an autopsy to determine the cause of death due to suspicion of a pre-existing condition, and would not authorize benefits without one.
- Mrs. Smith reluctantly agreed to the autopsy, but the funeral home was advised that embalming could not proceed as it would hinder autopsy results, so the body was placed in refrigeration.
- Dan Ray continued to insist on an autopsy and refused to authorize embalming for several days, but neither he nor Travelers took any steps to arrange or pay for the autopsy.
- The embalming of Mr. Smith's body did not begin until Wednesday afternoon, five days after his death, resulting in deterioration that prevented an open-casket viewing, and the funeral was delayed for one week.
Procedural Posture:
- Alva Smith's widow, Anna F. Smith, and daughters, Roseann McKibben and Sue Ellen Smith, brought suit against Travelers Insurance Company and Dan Ray in circuit court, alleging the tort of outrage and deceit.
- The circuit court submitted the tort of outrage question to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for the Smith family, awarding $20,000 each for outrage and $125,000 for punitive damages (jointly and severally against Travelers and Ray), plus $87.50 each to Mrs. Smith and Ms. McKibben for deceit.
- Appellants (Travelers and Ray) moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the circuit court denied.
- Appellants (Travelers and Ray) appealed the circuit court's denial of their JNOV motion, and other assignments of error, to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
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 an insurance company's agent commit the tort of outrage by intentionally or recklessly delaying the burial of a deceased individual, thereby interfering with the family's right to bury their dead, even if direct contact with the family is through their agents?
Opinions:
Majority - Ray Thornton, Justice
Yes, an insurance company's agent can commit the tort of outrage by intentionally or recklessly delaying the burial of a deceased individual, thereby interfering with the family's right to bury their dead, even if direct contact with the family is through their agents. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding substantial evidence for the tort of outrage. The court recognized the "quasi-property right" of nearest relatives to bury their dead and the corresponding civil liability for wrongful interference. Appellants’ conduct met the standard for "willful and wanton conduct" and was "extreme and outrageous" because Dan Ray, despite knowing the cause of death was clear, demanded an autopsy, failed to take steps to obtain it, and effectively held Mr. Smith's body hostage for five days. This delay prevented timely embalming, an open-casket funeral, and exacerbated the family's grief. The court rejected the argument that direct contact with the family was necessary for liability, noting that conduct impacting a family through their agents (funeral home, attorney) can still constitute outrage, consistent with prior holdings in Growth Properties I v. Cannon and Hess v. Treece. The court also affirmed the jury instruction that statements to the funeral home should be treated as made to the family, and the admission of an interoffice memo regarding Ray’s past misrepresentations for impeachment purposes under Rule 613 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence.
Concurring - Tom Glaze, Justice
I concur with the majority's decision. I agree with the outcome regarding the introduction of the Travelers Insurance Company memo because the appellants failed to preserve their Rule 608(b) argument on appeal. However, I believe the memo was relevant under Ark. R. Evid. Rule 404(b) to show Travelers had knowledge of Ray’s past misrepresentations, rather than under Ark. R. Evid. Rule 613 for Ray’s credibility, which I do not find to have been argued by either party.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the applicability of the tort of outrage doctrine in contexts involving the handling of deceased bodies and the grieving process. It clarifies that liability can extend to third parties, such as insurance carriers and their agents, whose willful and wanton actions cause severe emotional distress, even if direct contact with the bereaved family is through their representatives. The ruling underscores the legal protection afforded to a family's fundamental right to a timely and decent burial, setting a precedent that such rights cannot be unreasonably obstructed under the guise of an investigation when the conduct demonstrates reckless disregard for the emotional consequences.
