
    Ex parte Eunice B. CRUTHIRDS. (Re Eunice B. Cruthirds v. SCI Alabama Funeral Services, Inc., d/b/a Roche-Belmany-Herrington Funeral Home, et al.).
    1980060.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    June 4, 1999.
    Vincent F. Kilborn III and M. Lloyd Roebuck of Kilborn & Roebuck, Mobile, for petitioner.
    Edward A. Dean of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes & Reeves, Mobile; and Andrew P. Campbell and David M. Loper of Campbell, Waller & McCal-lum, L.L.C., Birmingham, for respondents.
   MADDOX, Justice.

The Court of Civil Appeals, on July 24, 1998, affirmed the judgment of the trial court, without opinion. Cruthirds v. SCI Alabama Funeral Services, Inc. (No. 2970641) — So.2d - (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (table). We granted certiorari review. The legal issue presented in this ease is the same as that presented in Ex parte Lacoste, 738 So.2d 889 (Ala.1998). The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded, based on our holding in that case.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HOOPER, C.J., and HOUSTON, KENNEDY, SEE, BROWN, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur.

LYONS, J., concurs specially.

COOK, J., concurs in the result.

LYONS, Justice

(concurring specially).

Although I agree that the judgment in this case should be reversed on the authority of this Court’s decision in Ex parte Lacoste, 733 So.2d 889 (Ala.1998), I continue to adhere to my opinion that § 6-5-440, Ala.Code 1975, should not be applied beyond the limited circumstances discussed in my special writing in Lacoste, 733 So.2d at 895 (Lyons, J., concurring in the judgment and concurring in part in the rationale, but dissenting from dictum).

COOK, Justice

(concurring in the result).

I agree that the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is due to be reversed and the cause remanded. However, I do so on the basis of my special writing in Ex parte Lacoste, 733 So.2d 889 (Ala.1998), in which I dissented from the application of the abatement statute, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-440, in class-action contexts.  