XML 71 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
Commitments and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Litigation
We are a party to various litigation matters and proceedings. For each of our outstanding legal matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies and the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. We intend to defend ourselves in the lawsuits described herein. If we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we establish the necessary accruals. We hold certain insurance policies that may reduce cash outflows with respect to an adverse outcome of certain of these litigation matters.
Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 4:07-cv-137. On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, including our subsidiaries that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and services at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs’ contracts and made misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after we owned the cemetery. On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana. On April 24, 2009, shortly before Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to abandon other claims. We, as well as several other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint and add parties. In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action. On June 30, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel. In that order, the Court gave Plaintiffs 60 days within which to retain new counsel. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the trial court’s order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus. On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court’s order, Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf. Plaintiffs retained new counsel and the trial court granted the newly retained Plaintiffs’ counsel 90 days to review the case and advise the Court whether or not Plaintiffs would seek leave to amend their complaint to add and/or change the allegations as are currently stated therein and whether or not they would seek leave to amend the proposed class representatives for class certification. Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend both the class representatives and the allegations stated within the complaint. Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments. The Court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the class representatives and a portion of their claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs’ claims have been dismissed. Discovery in this matter will now proceed. We intend to defend this action vigorously. Because the lawsuit is in its preliminary stages, we are unable to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome to us or to estimate the amount or range of any potential loss, if any, at this time.