2:17-cv-04960
E.D. Pa.Jan 14, 2020Background
- Plaintiffs Caroline Bernstein and Rhea Schwartz (through Marla Urofsky) sued cemetery operator SCI and its PA subsidiary alleging oversold plots, inaccurate records, misburials, unauthorized relocations, and mishandling of remains; claims: negligence, breach of contract, and UTPCPL violations.
- Bernstein bought two adjacent plots at Shalom (1983); discovered a neighboring burial she feared encroached on her reserved spot; cemetery probed the plot multiple times and ultimately excavated and installed a 34" x 90" concrete liner (contract specified minimum 32" x 92").
- Schwartz purchased three adjacent plots at Roosevelt (1975) for her family; learned decades later her son Marc had been buried in the wrong plot (plot 4 instead of plot 3); cemetery disinterred and reinterred Marc with Schwartz’s consent.
- Sepulcher agreements incorporated each cemetery’s Rules & Regulations reserving the cemetery’s right to correct interment errors and disclaiming liability except to correct errors.
- At summary judgment, court assumed plaintiffs had non‑economic injury (experts diagnosed adjustment disorder with somatic manifestations) but analyzed whether defendants breached tort or contractual duties and whether plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable UTPCPL loss.
- Court granted summary judgment for defendants: negligence and breach of contract claims failed because no wanton/intentional misconduct or material contractual breach (substantial performance), and UTPCPL failed for lack of ascertainable loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence claims survive (economic‑loss/gist doctrines) | Plaintiffs say they suffered emotional distress from cemetery errors and therefore may pursue tort claims | Defendants say contract remedies control and any harm is contractual/economic or at most negligent (not tortious) | Economic‑loss doctrine not fatal (plaintiffs allege physical manifestations), but negligence fails on merits because no wanton/intentional breach of tort duties by defendants |
| Whether misburials/disinterments support tort of interference with a dead body | Schwartz claims emotional harm from misburial/disinterment of son | Defendants say no intentional or wanton conduct; errors were negligent and promptly corrected with consent | Tort requires intentional or wanton misconduct under Papieves; negligence insufficient, so claim fails |
| Whether defendants breached the Sepulcher Agreements | Plaintiffs assert promised burial dimensions and exclusivity were breached (Bernstein: liner slightly shorter; Schwartz: initial misburial) | Defendants point to substantial performance, corrective rights in the agreements, and plaintiff consent to correction | Contracts substantially performed; deviations de minimis; agreements allow correction and disclaim liability except to correct—no material breach; plaintiffs will receive contractual benefits |
| Whether UTPCPL claim survives (ascertainable loss) | Plaintiffs claim loss of property/benefit (Bernstein: diminished space; Schwartz: value lost because of later reinterment) | Defendants say any loss is speculative or de minimis and plaintiffs suffered no actual monetary/property loss | UTPCPL requires ascertainable loss of money/property; Bernstein’s variance is immaterial (actually more square inches); Schwartz has no out‑of‑pocket or provable loss—UTPCPL claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986) (economic‑loss doctrine in products context)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 1995) (application of economic‑loss doctrine)
- Bohler‑Uddeholm Am., Inc. v. Ellwood Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2001) ("gist of the action" doctrine)
- Papieves v. Lawrence, 263 A.2d 118 (Pa. 1970) (recognizing tort for wanton/intentional interference with a dead body)
- Excavation Techs., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 985 A.2d 840 (Pa. 2009) (economic‑loss principle: negligence claims limited absent physical injury)
- Kaymark v. Bank of Am., N.A., 783 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2015) (UTPCPL requires ascertainable loss)