Cases brought against funeral homes alleging emotional distress are different from ordinary emotional distress claims. Ordinarily, a plaintiff alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) needs to provide medical or expert evidence in order to prove their damages. Clark v. Nenna, 465 N.J. Super. 505, 512 (App. Div. 2020). Not only that, for a typical IIED claim to succeed, the plaintiff must also provide evidence that their emotional damages are “severe,” as set forth in Buckley v. Trenton Saving Fund Soc’y, 111 N.J. 355, 366 (1988). To meet this high bar, the emotional distress must “…result in physical illness or serious psychological sequelae.” Aly v. Garcia, 333 N.J. Super. 195, 204 (App. Div. 2000). Even sleep disturbance, headaches, and depression are not enough on their own. Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 435 N.J. Super. 198, 237 (App. Div. 2014). Finally, emotional damages are not normally available for breach of contract claims, absent special circumstances. Fiore v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 144 N.J. Super. 74, 77 (Law Div. 1976).
However, in the context of cases brought against funeral homes, the analysis is different, due to the inherently sensitive nature of the services they provide. To begin with, bereaved plaintiffs in funeral home cases are permitted to collect emotional damages resulting from breach of contract, in an exception to the usual rule. Menorah Chapels At Millburn v. Needle, 386 N.J. Super. 100, 115 (App. Div. 2006) (“[B]ecause the provision of funeral services is specifically designed to bring comfort and solace to the bereaved, breach of a contract to provide such services can, if facts permit, support a claim for consequential damages that includes emotional distress.”) Furthermore, in such breach of contract cases, plaintiffs do not need to meet the heightened Buckley standard; rather, they simply need to provide evidence of whatever emotional damages they have suffered as a consequence. Id. at 116. This means that it is not necessary to provide expert testimony or a medical expert, as would be needed to meet the Buckley standard (though it is still advisable). In fact, plaintiffs’ damages are presumed in cases involving the mishandling of their loved ones’ remains or memorial services. Mem'l Properties, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 210 N.J. 512, 527 (2012). Nor is it necessary to use an expert to apportion the plaintiff’s emotional damages between grief from their loss and outrage at the defendant’s conduct. In the Menorah Chapels case, the court also held that difficulty of making this apportionment is no reason to dismiss the case on summary judgment, since the plaintiff can simply testify to the jury about what they have experienced. 386 N.J. Super. at 116.
Medical and expert evidence will always strengthen a plaintiff’s claim for emotional damages. But in cases against funeral homes alleging mishandling of the remains or the service, if the plaintiff has included a breach of contract claim, then the case can survive summary judgment even without meeting the heightened Buckley standard or providing any medical or expert evidence.