## Facts

- Traci Lynn Cole contracted with JNO. M. Oakey, Inc. (Oakey), a funeral home/crematory, to cremate the remains of her husband, William Daniel Cole.
- The written cremation contract identified who was authorized to pick up the cremated remains, listing Traci’s friend Carolyn Cunningham and Traci’s stepdaughter, Jessica Cole, among the authorized individuals.
- The contract did not state that the cremains would be divided between multiple urns for different recipients, and it did not limit how many urns an authorized person could receive at pickup.
- Traci alleged she discussed with Oakey employees that the cremains would be split into two urns so that one urn would go to Cunningham and one urn would go to Jessica.
- Oakey released two urns containing all of the cremains to Jessica.
- Jessica refused to provide any of the cremains to Traci (or return an urn), leaving Traci without possession of her husband’s cremains.
- Traci sued Oakey asserting breach of contract and multiple tort theories, including negligence-based claims and claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on Oakey’s release of both urns to Jessica.
- Oakey filed a demurrer, arguing the written contract governed pickup authority and the parol-evidence rule barred using alleged oral statements to add a term limiting pickup to one urn per person.

## Issues

1. Whether the cremation contract’s pickup provision was integrated on the question of who could receive the cremated remains, barring parol evidence of an alleged oral understanding that each listed person would receive only one urn.
2. Whether a plaintiff may use the partial-integration doctrine to add an alleged oral “one urn each” term when that term conflicts with the contract’s express authorization that certain persons may pick up the cremated remains.
3. Whether the complaint stated viable tort claims (including negligence-based theories and emotional-distress claims) against the funeral home based on the contract-related handling and release of the urns.

## Decision

- The Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke sustained Oakey’s demurrer as to each count asserted against Oakey and dismissed those claims.
- The court treated the contract language identifying authorized pickup persons as controlling on the question of who could receive the cremated remains.
- The court rejected the attempt to use alleged oral discussions to impose a “one urn per person” distribution limit where the written contract did not contain such a limitation and the proposed term would restrict the authority granted by the written pickup provision.
- Because the pleaded contract did not require Oakey to divide the cremains between recipients or prevent an authorized person from receiving both urns, the breach-of-contract claim was not legally sufficient.
- The court also sustained the demurrer to the tort and emotional-distress counts, concluding that the complaint did not plead facts that met Virginia’s requirements for those causes of action in this setting.

## Legal Principles

- On demurrer, the court accepts properly pleaded material facts and reasonable inferences, but not legal conclusions; dismissal is proper when the facts do not state a cause of action.
- The parol-evidence rule bars extrinsic evidence offered to contradict, vary, or add terms inconsistent with an integrated written agreement.
- Even where an agreement is only partially integrated, extrinsic terms may be considered only to supply additional, consistent terms; an alleged oral term that limits or changes an express written authorization is not admissible.
- Written contract language governs the parties’ obligations; a court will not rewrite a contract by inserting restrictions not found in the text.
- Emotional-distress and negligence-based tort claims must satisfy Virginia’s specific elements and pleading standards; claims grounded in a contractual dispute must still plead a legally recognized tort duty and facts meeting the tort’s required elements.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Traci Cole’s claims against the funeral home at the pleading stage because the written cremation contract authorized designated persons to pick up the cremated remains and could not be modified by alleged oral discussions to impose a conflicting “one urn each” limit, and because the complaint did not plead legally sufficient facts to support the asserted tort and emotional-distress causes of action against Oakey.


Cole v. JNO. M. Oakey, Inc., 101 Va. Cir. 288 (2019)