TRENTON, N.J. (Legal Newsline) - A New Jersey funeral home may have to defend itself in a lawsuit after misplacing a woman’s body, an error discovered only after the grieving widower saw a video image of another woman wearing his late wife’s jewelry and clothing on the day she was supposed to be entombed.
The man’s wife was later discovered buried in a cemetery, wearing another woman’s clothing and jewelry.
Plaintiff Leroy Kay sued SCI New Jersey Funeral Services for emotional distress and breach of contract after the mix-up. SCI argued any dispute must be resolved in arbitration under a contract Kay signed after his wife was exhumed and placed in the mausoleum.
A trial court ruled the arbitration agreement unenforceable because of the circumstances under which it was signed. New Jersey’s Superior Court, Appellate Division, reversed in a Jan 9 decision, ruling further discovery is needed to determine whether the contract is void for unconscionability.
Kay said he hired SCI New Jersey SCI after his wife of 63 years died in her sleep on Oct. 3, 2020 because it specialized in Jewish mortuary services. He said he reached an oral agreement the next day for her remains to be entombed at Mount Sinai Cemetery in Morganville, N.J., on Oct. 6, 2020.
About 60 friends and family members gathered for the funeral on Oct. 6 but after “a prolonged delay,” a funeral director contacted Kay and said they had lost the remains. This was confirmed during a FaceTime call where Kay and family members saw a deceased woman who was not his wife, wearing her clothing and jewelry. The funeral was held nevertheless, minus a body.
Later that day, the funeral home told Kay they found his wife’s body in “the wrong cemetery” in Northern New Jersey, wearing another woman’s clothing and jewels “next to a deceased man she did not know.” The body was exhumed and Kay’s daughter identified her on Oct. 8, with a second funeral for family members held that day. After the service, Kay signed an agreement including the arbitration clause, which he said a funeral director told him was to ensure the company covered the $13,000 funeral cost.
The defendants argued the arbitration agreement included an “integration clause” stating it replaced any previous agreements. But the arbitration agreement was a contract of adhesion, “presented to the plaintiff for signature on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, after the funeral services had already been rendered and leaving nothing for plaintiff to negotiate,” the appeals court said.
The case needs to go back to the trial court for more discovery to determine the plaintiff’s level of sophistication and other facts before deciding whether the contract was unconscionable, the court concluded.