St. Stephens Cemetery 4.5M Settlement Over Burial Plot and Service Purchases 1992-2017

The St. Stephens Cemetery 4.5M Settlement Over Burial Plot and Service Purchases 1992-2017 settlement, with individual payouts of TBD to eligible claimants who purchased a burial plot from st. stephen’s cemetery between january 1, 1992 and february 24, 2017, or. The filing deadline has not yet been announced. Proof of purchase is required.
Deadline: No deadline specified
Total amount allocated for all claims
Estimated amount per eligible claim
Claimants must provide documentation showing a qualifying purchase (burial plot and/or cemetery services) during 1/1/1992–2/24/2017, and if filing as next of kin or surviving spouse, documentation supporting that relationship to the purchaser.
Settlement Summary
St. Stephen’s Cemetery in Kentucky has agreed to a $4.5 million class action settlement tied to the sale of burial plots and related cemetery services over a long period—January 1, 1992 through February 24, 2017. Disputes like this often arise because families typically make cemetery purchases under emotional time pressure and rely heavily on the cemetery’s records, pricing, and representations about what is included in a plot, opening/closing fees, memorial care, and other services. Because these transactions can span decades and involve next of kin, the settlement is structured to potentially cover purchasers as well as surviving spouses or relatives handling an estate, with payouts varying depending on what was bought and what documentation can be provided. The lawsuit was filed to resolve claims that people who purchased plots or services may have been improperly charged, misled, or otherwise harmed in connection with those purchases during the covered years, and a class action is significant because it allows many families with relatively small individual claims to pursue relief collectively. The “proof required” and “deadline varies” features are typical of cemetery and funeral-related settlements: claimants may need contracts, receipts, or other cemetery records to verify eligibility and calculate compensation, and different categories of purchases can have different filing timelines or required forms. More broadly, the case fits within a pattern of consumer-protection litigation involving cemeteries and funeral providers, where allegations often focus on pricing transparency, recordkeeping, and whether promised services—such as perpetual care or specific interment rights—match what customers actually receive. The industry is generally regulated at the state level through cemetery and funeral boards, trust-fund or perpetual-care requirements, and rules governing disclosures and handling of consumer funds, while federal oversight (such as the FTC Funeral Rule) mainly targets funeral homes rather than cemeteries—leaving state consumer-protection laws and contract principles as common legal tools in disputes like this one.
Entities Involved
Related Topics
Eligibility Requirements
- Purchased a burial plot from St. Stephen’s Cemetery between January 1, 1992 and February 24, 2017, or
- Purchased cemetery/burial services from St. Stephen’s Cemetery between January 1, 1992 and February 24, 2017, or
- Are the next of kin of a person who purchased a burial plot or services during that period, or
- Are the surviving spouse of a person who purchased a burial plot or services during that period
Featured Investigations
Stay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.
Important Notice About Filing Claims
Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.
If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.
Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.
Related Settlements
Absolute Dental Group $3.3 Million Settlement for 2025 Data Breach Losses
Absolute Dental Group LLC agreed to pay a $3.3 million class action settlement over a potential 2025 data breach affecting consumers’ personal information. The incident occurred between Feb. 19, 2025 and March 5, 2025, when unauthorized access may have exposed data. Eligible U.S. residents who received notice from Absolute Dental about the incident may claim up to $5,000 for documented losses and may also receive a pro rata cash payment, with certain California residents eligible for an enhanced amount.
Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions
A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.
MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice
California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.
MetLife $1.2 Million Settlement for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offsets in New Mexico
Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (MetLife) agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it misrepresented or failed to disclose underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage limits and used improper offsets. The issue relates to New Mexico auto insurance activity between Oct. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2022. Eligible class members include qualifying policyholders who had UM/UIM claim offsets by at-fault payments or who purchased UM/UIM coverage in that period.
