Here’s a case we are watching. It has all the titillating elements: body snatching, big exemplary damages, vicarious liability for the wrongful acts of a subsidiary company, and whether there is sufficient evidence to support an award of millions of dollars in damages for mental anguish. You might say it has it all.
This case pits human emotions and respect for departed loved ones against the concept of measuring grief and outrage in terms of money damages. Does surreptitiously relocating a grave a few feet justify a multi-million dollar jury award?
The case was tried in the Rio Grande Valley region of south Texas. Juanita Guerra and her three daughters purchased cemetery plots 5 and 5x from cemetery owner SCI Texas. Plot 5 was already owned by someone else. Juanita’s husband, Marcos Guerra, was subsequently buried in plot 5. The cemetery later discovered its mistake and asked the Guerras’ permission to move Marcos’ grave. The Guerras refused. The cemetery went ahead and relocated the grave anyway, a few feet away to plot 5x.
The Guerras noticed sometime later that the dirt around Marcos’ grave had been disturbed, and questioned the cemetery who responded that it was simply resodding. Doubting the cemetery’s explanation, the Guerras performed their own investigation and discovered that the body had been moved. The Guerras then filed a complaint with the Texas Funeral Commission alleging that Marcos’ grave had been moved without their permission. The Commission found the cemetery committed no wrong, but afterward the cemetery sent the Guerras a letter admitting that Marcos’ grave had been moved. Marcos’ remains were then exhumed by the Guerras because “they were uncertain that [the cemetery] was being truthful about anything it said regarding [Marcos’] grave.”
The Guerras then sued SCI, the owner of a company that owned all the shares of SCI Texas, and SCI Texas for negligence, trespass, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Guerras finding SCI seventy percent liable and SCI Texas thirty percent liable. The jury awarded $2.3 million for mental anguish and $4 million as exemplary damages ($3 million against SCI and $1 million against SCI Texas).
SCI and SCI Texas appealed to the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals, arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on liability. The appellate court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict on trespass alone because the evidence showed the general manager of the cemetery, an SCI Texas employee who was paid by SCI and who testified he worked for “SCI company,” moved Marcos’ remains without the Guerras’ permission.
As to the multi-million dollar mental anguish award, the court pointed to testimony that the plaintiffs had suffered varying degrees of insomnia, stomach pains, depression and anxiety. The court observed that the jury awarded the three daughters substantially less in damages, $100,000 each for mental anguish, when compared to Juanita, $2 million for mental anguish, which indicated that the “jury engaged in a thoughtful analysis of the testimony and other evidence.”
With respect to the exemplary damages award, SCI and SCI Texas argued that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other dissimilar wrongful acts, the Guerras’ plan to appoint a trustee to monitor and police the cemetery, and the general wealth of SCI instead of its net worth. The court held that the evidence of other dissimilar wrongful acts was admissible because it showed a “pattern of wrongful conduct” which was relevant since it contradicted the defense that this was an isolated incident. The court also held there was no error in admitting evidence of defendants’ general wealth, because that’s close enough to evidence of net worth, and net worth is clearly admissible in an exemplary damages case.
However, the appellate court reduced the exemplary damages award because it was based on an erroneous jury charge which enabled the Guerras to be awarded an amount in excess of the statutory cap. The exemplary damages award was reduced to $1.5 million, $750,000 from both SCI and SCI Texas, to be apportioned seventy percent to Juanita and thirty percent to the three daughters.
The Defendants have appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. The Supremes have agreed to review the case for possible error as to the following issues: (1) whether evidence of other dissimilar wrongful acts at cemeteries owned by SCI, the parent company of SCI Texas, unconstitutionally affected the exemplary damages awarded; (2) whether SCI, the parent company of SCI Texas, is liable for subsidiary company’s employees’ conduct; and (3) whether the recovery standard was satisfied for mental-anguish damages. The court heard oral arguments this morning.
In Service Corporation International v. Guerra, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 7869, *2-*4 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2009, pet. granted).