Taliani v. Resurreccion
115 N.E.3d 1245
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Steven Taliani, an incarcerated father, sought a private visit with his 19-year-old son Austin’s remains after Austin died; visitation arrangements initially were made with Dysart-Cofoid Funeral Home but then cancelled at the family’s direction.
- Taliani sued his ex-wife Lisa Resurreccion and the funeral-home defendants (Robert Cofoid and Dysart-Cofoid Funeral Home) alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), interference with a purported right to visit remains, and related counts; multiple amendments followed.
- The trial court struck portions of the third amended complaint and dismissed several counts; later it granted summary judgment to the Cofoid defendants on the remaining IIED and interference claims and granted similar relief for Lisa.
- Key disputed facts: whether defendants’ denial of visitation was extreme/outrageous and whether Taliani suffered severe emotional distress; evidence showed a long estrangement between father and son, prior mental-health history for Taliani, and that funeral director acted at family direction.
- On appeal the Third District affirmed: (1) dismissal of certain counts as to Lisa (affirmed due to incomplete record), (2) summary judgment for defendants on IIED (conduct not extreme/outrageous; distress not shown to be severe), and (3) summary judgment on interference claims because Illinois law does not recognize a common-law right of next-of-kin to a private visit with remains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of IIED and interference claims against Lisa (counts I & IV) was erroneous | Lisa’s conduct was extreme/outrageous and a next-of-kin right to visit should be recognized; dismissal improper | Trial court correctly dismissed; plaintiff failed to plead facts showing extreme/outrageous conduct or a recognized right | Affirmed (appellate court affirms dismissal as to Lisa due to incomplete record—presumption of correct ruling) |
| Whether defendants’ conduct satisfied IIED standard (counts II & III) | Denial of visitation after arrangements was extreme/outrageous and caused severe emotional distress | Conduct was insensitive but not extreme/outrageous; plaintiff’s distress was not shown to be severe or distinct from grief caused by death itself | Summary judgment for defendants (IIED fails: no extreme/outrageous conduct; no severe emotional distress) |
| Whether Illinois recognizes a common-law right of next-of-kin to visit a decedent’s remains and a tort for interference (counts V & VI) | Next-of-kin have such a right or court should recognize a new tort for interference with visitation | Illinois law only recognizes right of possession for disposition; no common-law right to a private visit and no basis to create new tort | Summary judgment for defendants (no recognized common-law right; interference claim fails) |
| Whether plaintiff created factual dispute precluding summary judgment | Plaintiff relies on emotional impact, prior agreement to allow visit, and deposition testimony claiming increased grief | Defendants point to estrangement, direction from family, lack of treatment or new symptoms, and case law limits | Court: no genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment on the legal elements |
Key Cases Cited
- McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78 (Illinois) (sets elements for IIED and defines extreme/outrageous conduct)
- Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill. 2d 263 (Illinois) (extreme conduct must go beyond all bounds of decency)
- Public Finance Corp. v. Davis, 66 Ill. 2d 85 (Illinois) (emotional distress alone insufficient; must be severe)
- Leno v. St. Joseph Hospital, 55 Ill. 2d 114 (Illinois) (next-of-kin possessory rights to control disposition of remains)
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (Illinois) (summary judgment standard; review is de novo)
- First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (Illinois) (treatment when appellee does not file brief on appeal)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Illinois) (appellant’s duty to provide complete record on appeal)
- Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307 (Illinois) (affirmance of summary judgment may be upheld on any record-supported basis)