Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan

3 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc.

    118 Idaho 830 (Idaho 1990)   Cited 47 times
    Holding “ that an exception to the general rule involving damages for mental distress * * * exists in Idaho for cases involving mishandling of decedents' bodies and remains” and “ plaintiff entitled to recover need not manifest any accompanying physical injuries in order to recover for emotional distress in this particular type of case”

    22A Am.Jur.2d Dead Bodies § 86, p. 56 (1988); Vogelaar v. United States, 665 F. Supp. 1295 (E.D.Mich. 1987); Whitehair v. Highland Memory Gardens, Inc., 327 S.E.2d 438 (W.Va. 1985); Dumouchelle v. Duke University, 69 N.C. App. 471, 317 S.E.2d 100 (1984); Simpkins v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 200 S.C. 228, 20 S.E.2d 733 (1942); Steagall v. Doctors Hospital, 171 F.2d 352 (D.C. 1948); Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 105 So. 161 (1925); Edwards v. Franke, 364 P.2d 60 (Alaska 1961); Pettigrew v. Pettigrew, 207 Pa. 313, 56 A. 878 (1904). But see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 868, comment g. Therefore, absent physical injury manifesting emotional distress, we hold that only the spouse, or next surviving kin, may bring a cause of action pursuant to this exception.

  2. Payne v. Alabama Cemetery Ass'n, Inc.

    413 So. 2d 1067 (Ala. 1982)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that where “the act complained of does not itself inflict a legal injury at the time it is done, but plaintiff's injury only follows as a result and a subsequent development of the defendant's act . . . the cause of action ‘accrues,' and the statute of limitation begins to run, when and only when, the damages are sustained.”

    The plaintiff, being the nearest relative present, is a proper party to bring the action in tort, irrespective of any other possible theory of recovery. Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 105 So.2d 161, cert. denied, 213 Ala. 413, 105 So. 168 (1925). Appellees allege, as another ground for affirmance, however, that appellant's non-trespass claim is barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations.

  3. Chaney v. Ala West-AL, LLC

    22 So. 3d 488 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009)   Cited 12 times
    Recognizing that a two year statute of limitation applies to claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and tort of outrage

    The plaintiff, being the nearest relative present, is a proper party to bring the action in tort, irrespective of any other possible theory of recovery. Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala.App. 5, 105 So. 161, cert. denied, 213 Ala. 413, 105 So. 168 (1925). Appellees allege, as another ground for affirmance, however, that [the plaintiff]'s non-trespass claim is barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations. . . .