Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cantrell Funeral Home Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 December 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 19-cv-11192
• Citation: 506 F.Supp.3d 529
• Parties: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CANTRELL FUNERAL HOME INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

506 F.Supp.3d 529

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.CANTRELL FUNERAL HOME INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-11192

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed December 11, 2020

Courtney A. Krause, Thamara Elis Sordo-Vieira, Garan Lucow Miller, P.C., Frederick B. Plumb, Garan Lucow, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Alexander H. Benson, Benson & Associates, PLLC, Southfield, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [47]; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [48]

Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Court Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") filed the instant civil action against Defendants Cantrell Funeral Home, Inc.; Rec-Mac, Inc.; Raymond E. Cantrell II; Annetta Cantrell; Raymond E. Cantrell Revocable Trust Dated 5/15/84; and Jameca LaJoyce Boone (collectively, "Defendants"). See ECF No. 1. Several other Intervenor-Defendants joined this action, but they have since been dismissed with prejudice in a Stipulated Order for Dismissal. ECF No. 46. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that it is not required to provide coverage to or indemnify Defendants under the terms of their insurance agreement.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Annetta Cantrell, which was filed on September 8, 2020. ECF No. 47. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to the remaining Defendants, which was filed on the same day, is also before the Court. ECF No. 48. A hearing on Plaintiff's Motions was held on December 11, 2020. Plaintiff was the only party in attendance for this hearing.¹ For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [#47] and Motion for Default Judgment [#48].

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's action stems from eight lawsuits before the Wayne County Circuit Court and the administrative proceedings brought by the State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, Securities and Commercial Licensing Bureau. These lawsuits arise out of the alleged misconduct by Defendants Cantrell Funeral Home, Inc. or their directors, employees, or agents related to the funeral, burial, and/or disposition for the several claimants’ decedents discovered in 2018. ECF No. 1, PageID.3. They seek to impose liability on Defendants for the alleged intentional, improper handling, and storage of human remains discovered in 2018 that the underlying plaintiffs believed had been previously buried or cremated. ECF No. 48, PageID.758. Plaintiff provided commercial insurance coverage—including general liability coverage, special Funeral Director's Liability coverage, and commercial umbrella/excess liability coverage—to Defendant Cantrell Funeral Homes, Inc. from October 1, 1998 to February 1, 2016. ECF No. 48, PageID.752.

Plaintiff has taken the position that there is no coverage available to Defendants under its insurance agreement insurance policies because the claims asserted in the underling lawsuits do not meet the requirements of the insuring agreements; the claims arise out of conduct for which coverage is specifically excluded under the policies; and the claims arose outside of the applicable policy period. Id. at PageID.759–60. On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants. ECF No. 1. Excluding Defendant Annetta Cantrell, ECF No. 24, Defendants failed to file an answer or otherwise defend this matter in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. On June 19, 2019, the parties entered a Stipulated Order allowing seven Intervening-Defendants to join this case. ECF No. 23.

On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for the Clerk's Entry of Default against each Defendant excluding Defendant Annetta Cantrell. ECF Nos. 37, 38. The Clerk entered a Default as to each Defendant except Defendant Jameca LaJoyce Boone the following day. ECF Nos. 39, 40. On August 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Defendant Jameca LaJoyce Boone. ECF No. 44. The Court conducted a Status Conference in this matter three days later, where Plaintiff's counsel indicated that she was in contact with counsel for Intervenor-Defendants regarding their recently filed Stipulated Order for Dismissal as to the seven Intervenor-Defendants. ECF No. 45, PageID.502. The Stipulated Order for Dismissal as to the seven Intervenor-Defendants was submitted that same day. ECF No. 46.

Plaintiff timely filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Annetta Cantrell, as well as a Motion for Default Judgment as to the remaining Defendants in this matter, on September 8, 2020. ECF Nos. 47, 48. The Court did not receive a Response brief for either motion. The Court will provide more factual background as to each present Motion in its analysis below.

III. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47)

1. Factual Background

The several underlying state court and administrative proceedings stem from the discovery of human remains hidden throughout the Cantrell Funeral Home in 2018. ECF No. 47, PageID.514. First, on November 16, 2018, Jenelle M. Barber and Randy Holley filed suit in the Wayne County Circuit Court against the Cantrell Funeral Home, Inc., VHS Harper-Hutzel Hospital, Inc., Raymond E. Cantrell II, Annetta Cantrell, and the Raymond E. Cantrell Revocable Trust Dated 5/15/84, As Amended (hereinafter, "Barber Complaint"). ECF No. 47-3. The Barber Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that decedent Baby Holley died on April 14, 2009 and, despite making arrangements with Cantrell Funeral Home for a burial, the plaintiffs learned in 2018 that the decedent's body was discovered in the funeral home's ceiling crawl space. Id. at PageID.724.

Second, on January 23, 2019, Erika and Christopher Hinson filed suit against Ascension St. John Hospital, Cantrell Funeral Home, Inc., Raymond E. Cantrell II, and Annetta Cantrell (hereinafter, "Hinson Complaint"). ECF No. 47-4. The Hinson Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that the decedent passed away on January 30, 2014 and Defendant Annetta Cantrell took possession of his body on behalf of Cantrell Funeral Home beginning April 14, 2014 until it was eventually found in an unrefrigerated tupperware container on April 25, 2018. Id. at PageID.729–30.

Third, on January 24, 2019, Whitney Morris and AJ Johnson filed suit against VHS Harper-Hutzel Hospital, Inc., Cantrell Funeral Home, Inc., Raymond E. Cantrell, II, and Annetta Cantrell (hereinafter, "Morris/Johnson Complaint"). ECF No. 47-5. The Morris/Johnson Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that the decedent passed away on September 14, 2011 and, despite arrange for a burial, the decedent's body was found hidden in the Cantrell Funeral Home on or about October 24, 2018. Id. at PageID.737–38.

The plaintiffs in the Barber, Hinson, and Morris/Johnson Complaints each seek recovery for extreme emotional distress in amounts in excess of ten million dollars from defendants, including Defendant Annetta Cantrell. ECF No. 47, PageID.516–17. Defendant Annetta Cantrell tendered the Barber, Hinson, and Morris/Johnson complaints to Plaintiff for defense and/or indemnity under the applicable insurance policies. Id.

Fourth, after discovery of human remains in the Cantrell Funeral Home in 2018, the State of Michigan initiated a series of formal administrative complaints against Cantrell Funeral Home, Inc. (hereinafter, "Administrative Complaints"). ECF No. 1-12. The Administrative Complaints include allegations regarding the improper handling and disposition of human remains, as well as the those concerning that to date, approximately 200 unclaimed cremated remains were recovered in the funeral home. Id. at PageID.338, 340. At the time of this writing, Plaintiff has not received a request for defense or indemnity from Defendant Annetta Cantrell for these Administrative Complaints. ECF No. 47, PageID.518.

Plaintiff provided commercial insurance coverage including general liability ("CGL") coverage, special Funeral Director's Liability coverage, and Commercial Umbrella/excess liability coverage to its insured Cantrell Funeral Home, Inc. from October 1, 1998 to February 1, 2016, with the policy for each renewal period identical in both content and coverages. Id. at PageID.518–19. Plaintiff provides the policy language, including relevant exclusions, for each coverage in its Motion. Id. at PageID.519–523.

Plaintiff now moves for and requests the Court to grant summary judgment in its favor and issue the following Declaratory Judgment: (1) that the exclusions and coverage provisions contained in the Allstate Commercial and General Liability Policy No. 048-777-304, and Commercial Umbrella coverage Policy No. 048-777-289, including the special Funeral Director's Liability coverage form, do not provide coverage or require that Plaintiff indemnify Defendant Annetta Cantrell, individually or as a representative/agent of Cantrell Funeral Home, for the liability asserted against her in state court litigation and administrate proceedings commenced by the State of Michigan concerning the improper handling and disposition of human remains discovered in the Cantrell Funeral Home in 2018; and (2) that since Plaintiff owes no coverage for the liability asserted against Defendant Annetta Cantrell, it is relieved from providing a defense in a suit tendered to Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant Annetta Cantrell alleging that Defendant improperly handled and disposed of human remains at the Cantrell Funeral Home, and accordingly, Plaintiff is not obligated to pay attorney's fees, costs, and/or expenses, including payment of any judgment or settlement, in connection with any of the litigation or administrative proceedings commenced by the State of Michigan. ECF No. 47, PageID.507. As indicated supra , Defendant Annetta Cantrell did not file a Response to Plaintiff's present Motion. Indeed, the Court takes notice that Defendant Annetta...