ST. LOUIS – A federal judge has dismissed a woman’s complaint against an insurance company concerning the cremation of her deceased brother.
In an opinion issued April 8, Judge Jean Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Delores Davis' complaint against Union National Life Insurance Co. without prejudice and that an appeal of the dismissal would not be taken in faith.
Hamilton wrote she had already ordered Davis, of Collinsville, Illinois, to amend her complaint against Union National Life Insurance to show why the civil complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and found her response to that order unsatisfactory.
Davis is a pro se litigant, Hamilton noted, and her “complaint is handwritten on a boilerplate form. … The complaint is hard to read at times, and it is difficult to determine the exact nature of plaintiff’s claims.”
Hamilton said it seems two policies are in question, one that belonged to Oliver Davis Jr. with Delores Davis named as the beneficiary, and a second that belongs to her without an assigned beneficiary. Although she initially thought her brother was buried in a casket, Davis alleged four months later “he was sent to her ‘in a box,’” according to Hamilton's ruling. She alleged she received a check for $1,815, with the balanced of the $5,000 policy given to Lincoln Factoring, a funeral funding company.
Part of the evidence includes a document bearing Davis’ signature assigning $3,173 to Charbonnet-Labat-Glapion Funeral Home, though Davis maintains she was not in New Orleans to sign the document and that the funeral home cremated her brother against her wishes. She said the funeral home notified her they had a “surprise” for her in the mail, then sent the remains, the ruling states.
Davis further alleged that Union National is "lying" about whether she has a loan on the policy, has threatened to send federal agents to her home and refuses to give her receipts. Hamilton said Davis isn’t seeking monetary damages, but does want the court to remove her policy from the company.
Hamilton said the complaint made no reference to a federal law, and Davis’ response to the request to show cause also was “disorganized and difficult to understand,” though the main cause appears to be the handling of her brothers’ remains.
“No federal question appears on the face of plaintiff’s complaint,” Hamilton wrote. “Her allegations reference no federal statutes or treaties. She is not suing the federal government, a federal official or a federal agency. She has not claimed that her constitutional rights have been violated, and she has not alleged that defendant has acted under color of state law, such as would support” a federal lawsuit.
The federal court might have jurisdiction if Davis sought more than $75,000 in damages from the St. Louis-based insurance company. Although Davis did say her brother’s policy was worth $25,000, her complaint and response still don’t assert an amount sought in damages.
“Here, there is no jurisdictional basis on the face of plaintiff’s complaint,” Hamilton wrote. “Even after directing plaintiff to show cause why her case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, she failed to assert sufficient facts to demonstrate either a federal question or diversity of citizenship. Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed.”