THEhen the feast of the dead, November 2, many families will go to flower the burial of a relative. There is no doubt that on this occasion the Xs will remember the dispute that opposed them, for several years, to the funeral services of the metropolis of Montpellier.
On November 7, 2014, Mme X dies at his home. The next day, his eldest son calls the funeral services to organize his funeral. But he did not tell them that she was severely obese (92 kilos for 1.55 m, or a body mass index of 38.5). He receives an estimate of 3,500 euros, and orders a “standard” coffin.
When, on November 10, 2014, two employees presented themselves to take the measurements of the deceased, they found that the standard model did not allow “To welcome your body, in width”. They explain that a custom-made coffin will be needed.
On November 12, 2014, the funeral directors therefore delivered a larger and wider coffin than expected, without the family protesting. But, a few days later, the eldest son expressed his displeasure to their director: the coffin was not ” not comply “ to the one he had ordered, his size would have lost “The equivalent of three places” in the family vault.
Body reduction
The director observed that the coffin delivered had the same exterior characteristics as the coffin ordered, without costing more (approximately 1,500 euros). He offers several solutions, so that the family recovers the places lost in the vault: reduction of the bodies therein, replacement (free of charge) of the coffin of the deceased, after a regulatory period of five years, enlargement of the vault by digging. in the basement…
The family refuses: they demand the installation (free of charge) of a vault on the last concession available in the cemetery. As she does not obtain satisfaction, she goes to court.
The Montpellier Court of Appeal confirmed, December 2, 2020, that the funeral service did not commit “No contractual fault”. She considers that, “If better communication with the family would have been desirable, the funeral service cannot be criticized for having sought a solution and offered a service suitable for ensuring the dignity of the deceased, without financial consequences”.
She still observes that “ the management of places in a cellar ” was not covered by the contract, and that“He belonged to the family (…) make the funeral service aware of its requirements (…), so that a solution can be found ”.
You have 6.19% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.