Coleman & Coleman Enterprises, Inc. v. Waller Funeral Home
106 So. 3d 309
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Waller and Coleman operate funeral homes in Lafayette County, with Waller’s preneed trust funds held for customers' future services.
- Coleman advertised it would honor and transfer existing preneed contracts, creating potential transfers from Waller.
- Parham (initially with Waller) had a preneed contract; after Parham’s death, Coleman performed the funeral and sought funds from the Trust.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment finding contracts valid, irrevocable, and nontransferable, with living-contracts damages potentially barred.
- Jury awarded Waller compensatory and punitive damages; punitive damages later reduced to zero due to Coleman’s negative net worth; Waller was awarded attorneys’ fees; issues on appeal concern damages and remedies.
- Court remands for a new damages trial on living customers; affirms contract nontransferability; affirms attorneys’ fees; affirms punitive-damages reduction on cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are preneed contracts transferable by the customer to another provider? | Coleman argues contracts are transferable. | Waller contends contracts are irrevocable/nontransferable. | Irrevocable/nontransferable for pre-2002 forms; no unilateral transfer. |
| Did Coleman tortiously interfere with Waller’s contracts? | Waller alleges Coleman interfered with living customers’ contracts. | Coleman contends no improper interference and transfers invalid. | Damages for living customers remanded; live contracts cannot be double-recovered. |
| Was Coleman’s advertising false or misleading under the Lanham Act?</br> (false advertising claim) | Waller claims ads falsely stated transferability of preneed contracts. | Coleman argues ads reflect industry practice and were not misleading. | Lanham Act false-advertising claim upheld; jury validly found an exceptional case. |
| Are attorneys’ fees proper under the Lanham Act? | Waller contends fees were authorized by statute. | Coleman challenges amount/necessity of fees. | Fees upheld as authorized; no reversible error. |
| May punitive damages be reduced due to defendant’s net worth? | Waller disputes reduction of punitive damages. | Coleman presents negative net worth as basis for remittitur. | Cross-appeal affirmed; punitive damages reduced to $0. |
Key Cases Cited
- Theobald v. Nosser, 752 So.2d 1036 (Miss. 1999) ( Presumption of irrevocability absent termination clause (Miss.).)
- Cenac v. Murry, 609 So.2d 1257 (Miss. 1992) (Elements and damages in tortious interference with contract.)
- Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000) (Lanham Act false advertising standards.)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (Attorneys’ fees principles in Mississippi.)
- C & C Trucking Co. v. Smith, 612 So.2d 1092 (Miss. 1992) (Net-worth evidence and punitive-damages preservation.)