Angela Boweden and La Shunder Reed v. Heritage Mortuary, Inc.

Las Vegas, Nevada personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiffs who sued Defendant on a tort theory.



Lee Andrew Reed (Lee) met Angela Bow den in 2014 in Arkansas, and they quickly fell in love and married shortly after. Bowden moved to Las Vegas with her children so they could live with Lee, and the couple only grew closer. Bowden would also develop deep and loving relationships with Lee's family, especially his sister La Shunder Reed. Lee, however, fell ill from cancer and passed away on June 29, 2017.



That day, Reed called Heritage to collect and care for the body. Heritage collected the body on June 29, received a hospice report listing the date of death as June 29, and input Lee's date of death as June 29 in its internal system. Reed went to Heritage the next day to ask it to ship Lee's body to California so he could be buried with his family. But when Reed filled out the Heritage intake sheet that would allow Heritage to obtain

death certificates (an original and certified copies) and a transit and burial permit from the Department of Vital Statistics, she incorrectly listed the date of death as June 30. Of note, the intake sheet where Reed listed the incorrect date of death included a warning that the signer "assum[ed] all responsibility, financial or otherwise" for any errors on the form and the necessary corrections afterward.



Heritage failed to check its records or confirm with Reed that the date was correct and sent the information from the intake sheet, with the incorrect date, to the Nevada Department of Vital Statistics. After learning of the cost of shipping Lee's body to California, Reed changed her mind and called the director of Heritage, Tyrone Seals, to ask if he would arrange a showing for Lee's family and friends and then cremate the body in Las Vegas. Seals agreed and told Reed to return to Heritage to sign an affidavit of correction to receive a new burial transit permit to cremate Lee in Las Vegas. Seals also emailed Reed an estimated cost for the services— which contained the correct date of death. Reed agreed to the price and asked Seals if she could pay on July 14, and he accepted her offer.



The parties disagreed about the timing of the viewing. Reed later testified it was scheduled for 4:00 p.m. on July 14, the date she was supposed to pay Heritage. In addition, Angela Bowden posted on Facebook that the viewing would start on July 14 at 4:00 p.m. However, Seals testified that the viewing was set for 5:30 p.m.[2] Due to the confusion concerning the viewing start time, when the family arrived, Lee's body was not prepared. As a result, Seals directed an employee to quickly prepare the body for viewing. The viewing happened about an hour and a half later.



While Lee's body was being prepared, Reed paid Heritage over $4,000 as the amount the parties previously agreed upon for the viewing and cremation. Three days later, Reed and Bowden went to Heritage and Reed signed the affidavit of correction, which had been filled out by a Heritage employee, Donavan Mickens, so Heritage could obtain a change to the original transit and burial permit and cremate the body in Las Vegas. The affidavit of correction also incorrectly stated that the date of Lee's death was June 30, 2017, which Bowden, Reed, and Mickens failed to correct.



A dispute arose concerning the fee for the affidavit of correction, and Heritage refused to submit the affidavit of correction to the Department of Vital Statistics for an entire month. Heritage contended that Reed failed to pay the affidavit-of-correction fee and that neither she nor Bowden answered when it called requesting payment. Reed and Bowden countered that they called Heritage multiple times about the status of the death certificates and cremation, and they later testified they never received a response from Heritage.



Heritage did not send the affidavit of correction to the Department of Vital Statistics until August 18, but it was returned on September 1 because Reed had signed where Bowden, as the next of kin, was required to sign. Heritage resent the affidavit and subsequently received Lee's death certificates and the cremation permit—both listing the incorrect date of death. Bowden pointed out the incorrect date on the death certificates to Seals and Mickens, and Bowden had to submit another affidavit of correction, through Heritage, to correct the date of death. While the change request was pending. Heritage sent Lee's body to the crematorium, and when Bowden picked up the remains, the date of death on the container holding Lee's ashes listed June 30. Bowden did not receive

the corrected death certificates until November 17, almost five months after Lee passed away.



Bowden and Reed initiated a civil action against Heritage, alleging they were entitled to monetary damages based on breach of contract, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. They also claimed they were entitled to damages based on pain and suffering from Heritage's negligent handling of Lee's remains. The two parties engaged in standard discovery, but Bowden did not disclose her Facebook post announcing the date and time of the viewing. The district court subsequently presided over a five-day bench trial. During the trial, the court admitted into evidence Bowden's Facebook post over Heritage's objection. The district court admitted the post because both sides had already examined Bowden about the content of the post in the direct and cross examinations, and the post provided corroborating evidence of when the viewing was scheduled to take place.



Also during trial, Bowden and Reed did not present expert witness testimony to support their claim for damages based on pain and suffering. However, they both testified about their pain and suffering from the delayed viewing, the delayed cremation, and the delay in receiving Lee's death certificates. They both testified that they were unable to properly grieve and receive closure after Lee's death.



After the bench trial, the district court found that Heritage was negligent, as it breached its duty of care to Bowden and Reed by failing to handle Lee's body diligently and professionally, and that breach was the proximate and actual cause of their pain and suffering. The court found that Heritage's lack of a system to double-check information provided by a grieving loved one, combined with the multiple sources of Lee's correct date of death and their delay sending the first affidavit of correction, was a significant contributing factor to the delay of the viewing and the death certificates.



The district court also found that Heritage had negligently supervised its employees, who contributed to the breach because they failed to double-check the date on the affidavit of correction with the one found in Heritage's internal system. Lastly, the court found Bow den and Reed were comparatively negligent and 15 percent at fault for listing the wrong date on Heritage's intake form because it had an explicit warning that the signer would be responsible for incorrect information. The court accordingly ruled in favor of Bowden and Reed and awarded them damages in the amount of $90,000 to be split evenly between the two of them. The district court then reduced the award to $76,500 after their percentage of comparative fault was deducted from the initial award.



Heritage Mortuary, Inc. v. Bowden, 86224-COA (Nev. App. Nov 20, 2024)

Affirmed