Crestview Memorial Funeral Home, Inc. v. Faye B. Gilmer.
2011 Ala. LEXIS 135
| Ala. | 2011Background
- Jack Gilmer died July 16, 2003; Crestview’s manager Taul discussed embalming authorization with Gilmer by phone that night.
- On July 17, 2003 Gilmer signed an Authorization to Embalm allowing use of independent embalmers, apprentices, or interns under applicable law; Crestview’s licensed embalmer Groves was on medical leave.
- Caldwell, an apprentice embalmer then, did not disclose Groves’s absence or that a licensed embalmer would not be available; Taul embalmed Jack, not a licensed embalmers.
- Caldwell later became a licensed embalmer on July 31, 2003; she signed an embalming report indicating she embalmed, though Taul performed the embalming.
- A newspaper article later revealed Crestview had no licensed embalmer in July 2003; family members sought verification of licensure.
- Gilmer sued Crestview, Jones, Caldwell, and Taul for negligent or wanton conduct, suppression, breach of contract, and tort of outrage; the trial court granted some judgments and the jury awarded damages, later remitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crestview had a duty to disclose and suppressed a material fact | Gilmer contends Crestview owed a duty to disclose Groves’s absence. | Crestview argues no duty to disclose and no reliance by Gilmer. | JML improper; duty to disclose exists under circumstances; issue for trial remains. |
| Whether the suppression was proven with the required reliance and damages | Gilmer must show concealment induced action and damages. | No evidence of reliance or knowledge of suppression by Taul/Caldwell. | Remand; suppression issue must go to trial with proper instructions. |
| Whether the breach-of-contract claim was properly deemed material | Alleged breach (unlicensed embalmer) violated contract’s purpose; material. | Breach not shown to touch fundamental purposes or defeat contract. | JML on breach-of-contract reversed; jury must determine materiality. |
| Impact of JML on suppression claim and damages allocation | JML on contract affected suppression damages; need separate damages for claims. | JML avoided trial on contract; damages lump-sum; no breakdown. | Remand; require separate consideration of damages for suppression and contract claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keck v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 830 So.3d 1 (Ala. 2002) (duty to disclose may arise from circumstances)
- Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Vann, 53 So.3d 898 (Ala. 2010) (fraudulent suppression elements incl. duty and concealment)
- Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2003) (court will not formulate legal arguments for a party)
- Delchamps, Inc. v. Bryant, 738 So.2d 824 (Ala. 1999) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts)
- Line v. Ventura, 38 So.3d 1 (Ala. 2009) (jury verdict review standard; deference to jury)
- Sokol v. Bruno's, Inc., 527 So.2d 1245 (Ala. 1988) (material breach test for contract)