Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed a judgment arising from claims concerning the unauthorized embalming of the plaintiff’s husband by an unlicensed individual. The court held that Crestview was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the fraudulent-suppression claim, but that the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the breach-of-contract claim because materiality remained a factual issue. Because the compensatory damages were awarded as a lump sum on both claims, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the suppression and breach-of-contract claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Crestview was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Gilmer's fraudulent-suppression claim because she failed to establish a duty to disclose, knowledge, or reliance.
- Whether the trial court erred by granting Gilmer judgment as a matter of law on the breach-of-contract claim when substantial evidence created a factual question concerning whether the alleged breach was material.
- Whether the judgment and damages awards required reversal because the compensatory damages were awarded as a lump sum on the suppression and contract claims and the effect of the contract judgment on the jury's consideration of suppression could not be determined.
Holdings
- Crestview was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it failed to establish as a matter of law that it had no duty to disclose, that the relevant employees lacked knowledge of the suppressed facts, or that Gilmer failed to present a legally supported reliance argument.
- Gilmer was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because substantial evidence created a jury question as to whether Crestview's failure to have a licensed embalmer perform the embalming was a material breach of the authorization.
- The judgment had to be reversed as to both the suppression and breach-of-contract claims and remanded for a new trial because the court could not determine the effect of the contract judgment on the jury's consideration of suppression or allocate the lump-sum compensatory damages between the two claims.
Key quotations
“A party’s mere silence as to a material fact does not constitute fraud unless that party is under a duty to disclose that fact. A duty to disclose can arise either from a confidential relationship with the plaintiff or from the particular circumstances of the case.” (at 590)
“A material breach is one that touches the fundamental purposes of the contract and defeats the object of the parties in making the contract.” (at 592)
“Therefore, because Crestview presented substantial evidence creating a question of fact requiring resolution by the jury as to the materiality of the alleged breach of the contract, the trial court erred in entering a JML in favor of Gilmer with regard to that claim.” (at 592)
Factual background
Gilmer signed an authorization permitting Crestview to use qualified independent embalmers, but Crestview's only licensed embalmer was on medical leave and was not available. Instead, Crestview manager Taul, who was neither licensed nor an apprentice, embalmed Gilmer's husband's body, while Caldwell later prepared and signed an embalming report suggesting that she was the embalmer. Gilmer alleged that Crestview suppressed the facts concerning the unavailable licensed embalmer and breached the authorization's requirement that the embalming be performed by someone legally permitted to do the work.
Procedural history
In the prior appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on several claims and reversed as to the tort-of-outrage, suppression, and breach-of-contract claims against Crestview, Taul, and Caldwell. After remand, Taul and Caldwell were dismissed without prejudice, the trial court granted Gilmer judgment as a matter of law on breach of contract, and the jury found for Gilmer on suppression and awarded damages. The trial court entered judgment, remitted the punitive damages, and denied Crestview's posttrial motions. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on both the breach-of-contract and suppression claims.
Remand instructions
Conduct a new trial on the breach-of-contract and suppression claims. The decision did not reach Crestview's arguments concerning the damages awards.