A plaintiff’s fraud claim failed because she had no proof that her son’s body was cremated, rather than buried, as alleged in the complaint.
In Sessel v. N.J. Ford and Sons Funeral Home, Inc., No. W2024-00587-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025) (memorandum opinion), the plaintiff filed suit alleging that her son’s dead body had been cremated rather than buried as she instructed. According to the plaintiff, on the day of the son’s burial, the ground was too cold for a grave to be dug, so she was told he would be buried sometime thereafter. About a year after the funeral, she received an investigative report created by the medical examiner’s office that related to her son’s homicide. On a section labeled “cremation approved,” the form had been marked “yes.”
Based on this report, the plaintiff filed this suit against the funeral home and cemetery. Although the claims were hard to decipher, the Court of Appeals found that the complaint alleged breach of contract and fraud. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, citing testimony from the county’s Chief Medical Examiner who stated that this section of the report was meant to indicate that, if a family wished to cremate a body, it was permitted to do so because the forensic center had completed its investigation. He described it as “essentially pre-approval” for cremation, showing that if cremation were desired it would not hinder any investigation. He stated it was not authority for a funeral home to cremate a body.
Based on the evidence, the trial court granted both defendants summary judgment. Although the Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s orders were not sufficient, it nonetheless affirmed summary judgment on all claims.
The plaintiff’s fraud claim was premised on the assertion that her son’s body had been cremated instead of buried. A fraud claim requires the plaintiff to show an intentional misrepresentation, which the plaintiff alleged was the false claim of burial. The Court found, though, that the plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence creating an issue of fact as to whether the body was buried. The defendants presented proof that the form did not mean that the body was cremated, and the plaintiff did not respond with any additional evidence. The plaintiff therefore could not show an intentional misrepresentation, and her fraud claim failed.
The lack of evidence that the body was cremated was also fatal to the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. Summary judgment for the defendants was accordingly affirmed.
This memorandum opinion was released three months after oral arguments.