Tri-State Crematory Case: Families Fight Settlement
Updated July 2007: In 2002 hundreds of corpses were found on the property of a Georgia crematory. The crematory was discarding the bodies instead of cremating them. The families of the deceased filed a class action against Tri-State Crematory back in 2002, and five years later, the case has not been laid to rest.
Lawyers for the owners of the Tri-State Crematory are trying to stop the relatives of the uncremated from disputing a settlement the crematory had with its insurance company, Farm Bureau. The crematory’s attorneys say that because the families are challenging the settlement, they are violating the terms of their 2004 settlement with the Marsh family.
In the settlement between the Marsh family and Farm Bureau, the Marshes agreed to waive all claims to any insurance payouts which came from the crematory problems and to release the Georgia Farm Bureau Insurance Co. from any liability associated with the crematory’s operations. In return, the Farm Bureau agreed to give trust funds to two of the Marsh family members, and to cover any costs of future litigation from the crematory debacle.
In 2004, the families of the uncremated settled a class action against the Marshes for the promise of $80 million. The plaintiffs released the family from any further litigation and the Marshes said the families could have the payouts from their own insurance claims that stemmed from the crematory’s actions.
It turned out that the Marshes’ attorney had tricked the plaintiffs. Because of the Marshes settlement with Farm Bureau, the families would first have to sue the insurance company to get their money. The families did sue the Farm Bureau for the $80 million, and the insurance company has been fighting back for the past three years. Now the plaintiff’s attorneys are challenging the validity of the Marsh-Farm Bureau settlement calling it “fraudulent and collusive”.
The Farm Bureau has stated that if a Walker County judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs, then the insurance company will consider the Walker-Farm Bureau to be void. The Marshes’ attorneys claim that, "By litigating the rights of [Clara] Marsh without Marsh being a party to the litigation, [the plaintiffs are] 'indirectly' suing Marsh," which according to the suit, breaches the 2004 settlement agreement.