Savannah Cemetery Group Inc. v. DePue-Wilbert Vault Co.
307 Ga. App. 206
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- In 2008, Savannah Cemetery Group, Inc. (five private Savannah-area cemeteries) enacted a rule prohibiting concrete burial vaults and requiring steel or polymer vaults; notice was given to local funeral homes.
- Vault/funeral group, including a concrete vault manufacturer/distributor and six funeral homes, sued to enjoin enforcement of the rule, alleging it violated the Georgia Cemetery and Funeral Services Act of 2000 and would disrupt contractual/business relations.
- A bench trial found the rule unreasonable and prohibited by the Cemetery Act, and issued a permanent injunction against enforcing the concrete vault ban.
- Evidence showed widespread consumer preference for concrete vaults, higher costs for alternatives, and potential breach of preneed contracts if the rule forced changes.
- The cemetery group appealed, arguing the rule was reasonable, the injunction was improper, and various evidentiary issues flawed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rule banning concrete vaults is unreasonable under the Cemetery Act | Cemetery group: rule is reasonable and within act's scope | Vault group: rule is unreasonable and conflicts with act | Rule not reasonable; injunction affirmed |
| Whether the permanent injunction was supported by evidence and proper under equity | Injunction improperly granted or overbroad | There was urgent harm and no adequate legal remedy | Injunction proper; supported by evidence and discretionary power exercised appropriately |
| Whether Brugger's expert testimony was properly admitted and based on reliable methods | Brugger lacked qualifications or reliable methodology | Brugger had appropriate expertise and data; admissible | No abuse of discretion; Brugger admissible and his methods acceptable |
| Whether cemetery group was misled about evidence and whether new trial issues existed | Trial court changed course without fair notice; new evidence potential | Record showed trial court invited relevant testimony and no ruling on purported expert testimony was sought | No reversible error; no failing to secure admissibility ruling |
| Whether the injunction was overly broad by prohibiting any future concrete vault bans | Injunction too broad and not narrowly tailored | Injunction is limited to banning concrete vaults in the five cemeteries | Injunction appropriately limited |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobb County-Kennestone Hosp. Auth. v. Prince, 242 Ga. 139 (1978) (court review of agency-like regulation scrutiny; not a private rule presumption)
- Albany Surgical v. Dept. of Community Health, 257 Ga.App. 636 (2002) (presumption of validity for regulations; agency-like review applied to private entities is limited)
- Memar v. Jebraeilli, 303 Ga.App. 557 (2010) (standards for appellate review of bench trial findings and credibility of witnesses)
- Owens v. Ink Wizard Tattoos, 272 Ga. 728 (2000) (permissible appellate testing of equitable remedies and abuse of discretion standard)
- Goode v. Mountain Lake Investments, 271 Ga. 722 (1999) (abuse of discretion in injunctive rulings; standards for injunctive relief)
- Dept. of Transp. v. Crowe, 299 Ga.App. 756 (2009) (weight of expert testimony; cross-examination credibility; admissibility boundaries)