Opinion ID: 1951928
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim Three

Text: The pertinent part of the claim follows: 2. Plaintiff avers that when he conducts a funeral for a deceased person who was insured by a burial policy issued by defendant, the defendant refuses to pay him the proceeds of the said policy. That because the deceased was covered by a burial policy, the deceased's relatives refuse to pay plaintiff for the service and plaintiff is thereby deprived of a large portion of the funeral business, and freedom of competition is thereby destroyed. The affidavits show that plaintiff was offered a contract to become an authorized funeral director but he did not enter into the contract and he concedes that he is not an authorized funeral director. This contention was answered in Hunter v. Brown-Service Funeral Co., 241 Ala. 25, 200 So. 869. There, the policy named two authorized undertakers. One of them, the plaintiff Hunter, terminated his relationship with Brown-Service and was not an authorized undertaker at the time of insured's death. The family of the policy holder took the policy to Hunter and he provided the services. The insurance company refused to pay him and he sued. The trial court rendered judgment for the company and this court affirmed, stating: Therefore, no recovery could be had for services rendered the third party in question. The appellee had no recourse against appellant, the latter on account of the contract wanting in mutuality, as it then was, and which cannot be enforced against appellee. Stewart's v. Redmond et al., 219 Ala. 365, 122 So. 315. All that is promised the insured is that the company, appellee, will furnish the merchandise and services promised either itself, or through its authorized undertaker (the undertaker who happens to be authorized as the one to represent the company at the death of the insured). All appellee's service contracts with undertakers must provide for termination by appellee upon reasonable notice. Appellant's contract of August 18, 1933, so provided and was terminated in accordance with such provisions, and in addition, appellant himself had abandoned said contract and made no claim that it still existed. The policy itself discloses that only an authorized undertaker of appellee could furnish the funeral merchandise and service called for in the policy, which means the undertaker who is appellee's `authorized undertaker' at the time of performance by appellee, which is the death of insured.    In the instant case, plaintiff refused to become an authorized funeral director and insofar as Liberty National is concerned, he was a stranger to the contract and can take no advantage therefrom or enforce any legal complaint thereon. The rule is that one not a party to, or in privity with a contract, cannot sue for its breach; and a stranger to a contract can take no advantage of a breach of any condition of the contract. Watson v. Mills, 275 Ala. 176, 153 So.2d 612. Claim Three is without merit. The statute required the policy to name an authorized funeral director and no liability attached unless the policy was presented to an authorized funeral director.