Life Investors Ins. Co. of America v. Heline, 62443

• Citation: 285 N.W.2d 31
• Decision Date: 14 November 1979
• Docket Number: No. 62443,62443
• Parties: LIFE INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, an Iowa Corporation, and Union Life Insurance Company, an Ohio Corporation, Appellants, v. Dorothy M. HELINE, in her individual capacity and as Administrator of the Estate of John Peter Heline, Deceased, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Page 31

285 N.W.2d 31

LIFE INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, an Iowa Corporation, and Union Life Insurance Company, an Ohio Corporation, Appellants, v. Dorothy M. HELINE, in her individual capacity and as Administrator of the Estate of John Peter Heline, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 62443.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 14, 1979.

Timothy J. Walker and Kermit S. Sutton of Whitfield, Musgrave, Selvy, Kelly & Eddy, Des Moines, for appellant Life Investors Ins. Co. of America.

Stewart, Hatfield, Klass & Whicher, Sioux City, for appellant Union Life Ins. Co.

John P. Dollar of Seery, Dollar & Griffin, Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered en banc.

LARSON, Justice.

Plaintiff life insurance companies commenced an action for disinterment for an autopsy to determine the cause of death of an insured. The trial court, concluding the request was not made within a reasonable time, refused to order disinterment. On appeal, we reverse and remand for entry of a disinterment order.

John Heline, husband of the defendant Dorothy M. Heline, died on July 1, 1974. The death certificate stated his death was by natural causes cardiac arrythmia due to myocardial infarction and "hypertension-obesity." The body was embalmed and, on July 3, 1974, was buried without an autopsy.

At the time of his death, John Heline was insured by plaintiffs under policies providing for double-indemnity benefits for accidental death. Claims for the base amount of the policies were paid soon after Heline's death; however, claims for double-indemnity benefits filed in December, 1974, and January, 1975, were denied by both companies in January, 1975. The basis for denial was that Heline's death was not the result of an accident, but of natural causes. On May 26, 1976, actions for payment of double indemnity benefits were commenced, and the insurance companies' action for disinterment was commenced on June 2, 1977. Defendant answered, alleging the plaintiffs' unreasonable delay precluded their right to seek an order for disinterment. Trial on the disinterment petition was held on June 16, 1978.

At the trial, the parties relied upon testimony of pathologists on the issue of the probative value of an autopsy, in view of the length of time which had passed after burial. While neither of the pathologists testified with certainty that an autopsy would establish the cause of death, even defendant's pathology witness stated that some useful evidence would "likely" be revealed at that time, depending largely on four factors: ground temperature, integrity of the casket, the embalming process, and the nature of the illness, i. e., whether extended or of short duration. Plaintiffs' pathologist agreed that these factors were critical in determining success of a delayed autopsy and concluded that, assuming the existence of such favorable conditions, "(t)here is no guarantee that one could find everything, but I believe information, both positive and negative, could be elicited by such an examination." Based upon the testimony of the embalmer as to the manner of his embalming of the body, and the types of casket and vault used, the chances were "quite good" that this body was well preserved, according to him.

Our disinterment statute, section 144.34, The Code, contains no time limits. It provides, in relevant part:

Disinterment of a dead body or fetus shall be allowed for the purpose of autopsy or reburial only, and then only if accomplished by a licensed funeral director or embalmer. A permit for such disinterment and, thereafter reinterment shall be issued by the state registrar according to rules adopted pursuant to chapter 17A or when ordered by the district court of the county in which such body is buried. . . . Disinterment for the purpose of autopsy or reburial by court order shall be allowed only when reasonable cause is shown that someone is criminally or civilly responsible for such death, after hearing, upon reasonable notice prescribed by the court to the surviving spouse or in his or her absence, death or incapacity, the next of kin. Due consideration shall be given to the public health, the dead, and the feelings of relatives.

The basic requirement for disinterment is "a strong showing that the facts sought will be established by an examination or autopsy." 25A C.J.S. Dead Bodies § 4(3), at 506 (1966). Accord, 22 Am.Jur.2d Dead Bodies § 20, at 568-69 (1965). The principle was thus stated in In re Disinterment of Tow, 243 Iowa 695, 700, 53 N.W.2d 283, 286 (1952): "It is sufficient to show there is reasonable likelihood that an autopsy would either confirm or negative the claim of the insurer-applicant." Obviously, passage of time would be an important consideration in making such a showing, and could result in a loss of the right to request disinterment not because of the delay per se but because of the attendant reduction in probative value of the autopsy results. In concluding the delay here was fatal to the request for disinterment, the trial court relied upon this language in In re Disinterment of Jarvis, 244 Iowa 1025, 1031, 58 N.W.2d 24, 27 (1953):

Conceding any right to a court order for disinterment may be lost by unreasonable delay in applying for it, . . . .

The trial court considered Jarvis, by implication, made it "clear that a right to disinterment may be lost by unreasonable delay," despite its recognition that "(o)ur statutes fix no time limit for filing such an application." Ibid.

As Jarvis pointed out, time limitation for requesting disinterment is a policy question for the legislature, not the courts. No such policy having been expressed as a separate condition to disinterment, we should not supply it by construction.

As applied to this case, delay alone was not considered by the pathologists to be determinative on the value of an autopsy. Rather, the circumstances surrounding preparation and burial were the primary considerations, and the defendant's own expert testified it was "likely" that some information on cause of death would be obtained. Based upon the evidence, the trial court concluded there was in fact "a reasonable likelihood that an autopsy now would either confirm or negative the plaintiffs' claim as to the cause of death."

Despite the court's conclusion that the requisite showing of likely probative value had been established, it still refused to order disinterment on the ground that "the court is giving consideration to the dead in its finding of an unreasonable delay in seeking disinterment and autopsy." The trial court therefore gave to this statutory "consideration" the status of a condition precedent to disinterment, raising the first issue for disposition.

I. The probative value of an autopsy having been established, what further showing must be made by a petitioner for disinterment? Are the statutory "considerations" in fact conditions precedent to disinterment which must be satisfied before it may be ordered?

Iowa recognized the right of disinterment under some circumstances, even before the enactment of our disinterment statute in 1924. See, e. g., Thompson v. Deeds, 93 Iowa 228, 61 N.W. 842 (1895); Jarvis, 244 Iowa at 1034-35, 58 N.W.2d at 29 (dictum). Thompson said disinterment would be ordered only "under circumstances of extreme exigency," because "(a) proper appreciation of the duty we owe to the dead, and a due regard for the feelings of their friends who survive, and the promotion of the public health and welfare all require" such caution. 93 Iowa at 230, 61 N.W. at 842. Thus, at common law the courts had power to order disinterment, but these cautionary words placed restrictions on the exercise of that power. The cautionary language of Thompson is strikingly similar to our present statutory mandate that "(d)ue consideration shall be given to the public health, the dead, and the feelings of relatives." § 144.34, The Code. These considerations are neither bases for nor parameters of the court's authority to order disinterment. Rather they are caveats, in effect, admonishing courts that, when ruling in disinterment cases, they must not disregard certain special considerations attending such unique and sensitive subject matters. The general rule, stated in 25A C.J.S. Dead Bodies § 4(3), at 506 (1966), supports this view. It states:

Disinterment for the purpose of examination or autopsy should not be ordered unless it is clearly established that good cause and urgent necessity for such action exist. An order should not be made except on a strong showing that the facts sought will be established by an examination or autopsy. In the search for the truth, the problems of religion, the wishes of decedent, the sensitivities of loved ones and friends, or even the elements of public health and welfare, Should not be disregarded. (Emphasis added.)

Accord, 22 Am.Jur.2d Dead Bodies § 21, at 569 (1965).

As all three listed criteria for "consideration" militate against disinterment, the wording of the statute clearly implies that there is an unexpressed consideration against which those criteria must be balanced. That implied consideration is the underlying authority of the court, even predating the statute, to order disinterment, and its broad power to order production of relevant evidence. The underpinning of that power in exhumation cases is the need for, and the probative value of, the exhumed evidence. See Jarvis, 244 Iowa at 1034-35, 58 N.W.2d at 29; 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2221, at 197-98 (McNaughton rev. ed. 1961); 25A C.J.S., Supra, at 505-506; 22 Am.Jur.2d, Supra, § 20, at 568-69. Therefore, even if matters of public health, the dead, and feelings of relatives are established as countervailing considerations in a particular case, disinterment may still be allowed if the probative value of the autopsy evidence, and the need for it, weigh more heavily in the balance. This is clearly recognized in Jarvis, which stated "the right to have the body remain undisturbed . . . is...