In Radford v. Stansbury, Lonzell Radford died on June 21, 2023, while living with Ardie Govan. No. 06-25-00058-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 9052 (Tex. App.—Texarkana November 17, 2025, no pet.). Govan reported the death to WCSO, which called Croley Funeral Home to remove the body. Govan signed a cremation authorization form as ‘FRIEND/EXECUTOR’ and certified she had ‘the full legal right to authorize the cremation’ and agreed she had made reasonable efforts to contact anyone with equal priority rights. Lonzell’s adult sons discovered on September 15, 2023, that their father had been cremated without their knowledge and sued the funeral home for wrongful cremation and other claims. The funeral home filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The sons appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed, stating:
The law is clear that a cremation cannot occur without a “cremation authorization form signed by an authorizing agent.”… the Texas Health and Safety Code. Section 711.002(i) expressly states, “A cemetery organization, a business operating a crematory or columbarium or both, a funeral director or an embalmer, or a funeral establishment shall not be liable for carrying out the written directions of a decedent or the directions of any person who represents that the person is entitled to control the disposition of the decedent’s remains.” This section protects crematories, funeral homes, and their directors “from liability when they carry out the instructions of” a person like Govan, who represented that she had the authority to control the disposition of Lonzell’s remains. Also, “[a] crematory establishment, funeral establishment, funeral director, cemetery, or other person that contracts to provide for a cremation, accepts human remains, cremates human remains, or releases or disposes of the cremated remains as provided on a cremation authorization form is not criminally or civilly liable for performing the actions authorized.” Further, “[a] crematory establishment, funeral establishment, funeral director, cemetery, or other person is not liable in a civil action for representations made by the authorizing agent or the agent’s representative in the cremation authorization form.”
Even when faced with this statutory language, the Radfords argue that “funeral homes and directors have a duty to ensure that the person directing the disposition of a decedent’s remains has legal authority to do so.” Texas courts have found otherwise. “Under the plain language of section 711.002, subsection (i) does not require a funeral establishment to affirmatively investigate the person’s representations to confirm that the person making the representation actually has priority under subsection 711.002(a) or otherwise has the authority the person represents he has.” “Nor does the statute require that a funeral establishment’s protection from liability depend on its having followed directions from a person with priority pursuant to section 711.002(a).” “Rather, the statute provides that the funeral establishment shall not be liable for carrying out the ‘directions of any person who represents that the person is entitled to control the disposition of the decedent’s remains.'”
By signing a cremation authorization form, Govan represented that she had the authority to make arrangements for Lonzell’s body. Further, it is undisputed that Croley and Tyler Crematory acted pursuant to the cremation authorization form signed by Govan. Therefore, “[u]nder the plain language of section 711.002(i) [Croley and Tyler Crematory] proved as a matter of law that [they were] entitled to statutory immunity when [they] subsequently carried out the cremation based on that representation,” and the Radfords introduced no evidence suggesting otherwise.
Id. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the funeral home.