On May 6, 2013, plaintiffs Florence Viveros, 59, and Elizabeth Dennison, 57, made arrangements with Alta Vista Cremation and Funeral Service, a mortuary, and Pacheco Cemetery & Crematory, a cemetery, both of which were owned by Centerpoint Services Inc. and located in the same building in Martinez. Their father, Vincent Jarvis, died three days earlier, at the age of 91, and Viveros and Dennison were attempting to make arrangements to have their father’s body cremated after first sending it to the coroner for a limited autopsy, which was to have the lungs and pleura removed for testing prior to cremation. Viveros and Dennison wanted to determine if their father died from an asbestos-related disease and whether it was appropriate to file an asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit and workers compensation claim, as Jarvis had met with attorneys and started an investigation before his death. So, the family was following his wishes. However, due to a paperwork error by one of the Centerpoint employees, the cremation was commenced on May 8, 2013, before the body was taken to the coroner. Once the error was discovered, the cremation was stopped and the uncremated remains of Jarvis, which included the torso, were removed from the cremation chamber and driven to the coroner’s office. The following day, Jarvis’ lungs were removed, and the body was returned to Centerpoint’s crematory, whereupon the cremation was completed. Subsequent testing of the lungs confirmed the presence of asbestos fibers in Jarvis’ lungs, but Viveros and Dennison claimed the mesothelioma was destroyed. As a result, Viveros and Dennison had to settle their wrongful death lawsuit. Viveros and Dennison sued Centerpoint; Centerpoint’s president, Eric Bianco; the crematory equipment manufacturer, Therm-Tec Inc.; and four other entities. Viveros and Dennison alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a breach of contract, negligence, negligence per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent interference with a decedent’s remains. Centerpoint’s counsel moved for nonsuit, and all causes of action except breach of contract and negligence were dismissed. In addition, Bianco and Therm-Tec were voluntarily dismissed before trial and four other entities — which included S.E. Combined Services of California Inc., Veronica Alvarez, All Furnace Corp. and Albel Duran — were also dismissed. The matter proceeded to trial against with Centerpoint only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that Centerpoint negligently mishandled and desecrated Jarvis’ remains, pursuant to Cristensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. 3d 868, and that the premature, partial cremation destroyed evidence of the mesothelioma in Jarvis’ pleura, which decreased the proper value of the resolution of Viveros and Dennison’s wrongful death asbestos lawsuit. Centerpoint’s counsel contended that although Centerpoint’s employee made a mistake that resulted in the cremation being prematurely commenced, it was stopped in time for the lungs to be removed and tested. Counsel argued that as a result, the contract with Viveros and Dennison was not breached. Counsel also argued that the pleural tissue was present when it was examined by the plaintiffs’ expert pathologist and that it showed no signs of mesothelioma., Viveros and Dennison claimed that they each developed serious emotional distress, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder, after reading the description of their father’s remains in the coroner’s report. The plaintiff’s psychology expert diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder in both plaintiffs. Viveros and Dennison sought recovery of damages for their emotional distress. Centerpoint’s counsel argued that Viveros and Dennison did not suffer any serious emotional distress or PTSD as a result of the error and that Viveros and Dennison requested, and voluntarily read, the coroner’s report. The defense’s psychiatry expert testified that the plaintiffs’ psychology expert’s diagnosis of PTSD was incorrect, as the required criteria for such a diagnosis set forth in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5, were not met by either plaintiff.