Commitments and Contingencies Level 1 (Notes)	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Commitments and Contingencies Insurance Loss Reserves We purchase comprehensive general liability, morticians’ and cemetery professional liability, automobile liability, and workers’ compensation insurance coverage structured with high deductibles. The high-deductible insurance program means we are primarily self-insured for claims and associated costs and losses covered by these policies. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we have self-insurance reserves of $53.1 million and $52.7 million, respectively. Litigation We are a party to various litigation matters, investigations, and proceedings. For each of our outstanding legal matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies, and the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the lawsuits described herein; however, if we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we establish the necessary accruals. We hold certain insurance policies that may reduce cash outflows with respect to an adverse outcome of certain of these litigation matters. We accrue such insurance recoveries when they become probable of being paid and can be reasonably estimated. Burial Practices Claims. We are named as a defendant in various lawsuits alleging improper burial practices at certain of our cemetery locations. These lawsuits include but are not limited to the Garcia, Sands, Zinn and Baio lawsuits described in the following paragraphs. Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., was filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 04-25646 CA 32. Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia. Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the decedent could not be readily located. Subsequently, the decedent’s grave was located and verified. In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class action complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. On May 4, 2011, the trial court certified a class and we are appealing that ruling. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages. F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.; Case No. BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles — Central District. This case was filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries regarding our Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission Hills, California. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. The plaintiff claims the cemetery damaged and desecrated burials in order to prepare adjoining graves for subsequent burials. In February 2012, the court held a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for class certification and, so far, no order has been issued relating to that hearing. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages. David Zinn and Michael Graff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. 502012CA006536MB, in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County of Florida. This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the preceding Sands case on April 5, 2012 regarding our Star of David Memorial Gardens Cemetery and Funeral Chapel & Bailey Memorial Gardens located in North Lauderdale, Florida. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. The plaintiffs allege the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial operations and did not disclose them to customers. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages. Michele Baio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beth David Memorial Gardens, Inc. et al.; Case No. 502012CA006532MB, in the Circuit Court of the 15^th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County of Florida. This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the preceding Sands and Zinn cases on April 5, 2012 regarding the Beth David Memorial Gardens and Chapel located in Hollywood, Florida. Although we acquired the cemetery in connection with our 2006 acquisition of Alderwoods Group, Inc., we never managed the cemetery and sold it to a third party shortly after closing on the Alderwoods acquisition. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. The plaintiff alleges the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial operations and did not disclose them to customers. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages. Antitrust Claims. We are named as a defendant in an antitrust case filed in 2005. The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394; Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Houston (“Funeral Consumers Case”). This was a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers throughout the United States alleging that we and several other companies involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive conduct associated with the sale of caskets. Based on the case proceeding as a class action, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion, before trebling. However, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action. We deny that we engaged in anticompetitive practices related to our casket sales, and we have filed reports of our experts, which vigorously dispute the validity of the plaintiffs’ damages theories and calculations. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims on September 24, 2010, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal on October 19, 2010. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit. Wage and Hour Claims. We are named a defendant in various lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state laws regulating wage and hour overtime pay, including but not limited to the Prise, Bryant, Bryant, Helm, Stickle, and Southern lawsuits described in the following paragraphs. Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation International; Cause No. 06-164; in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “Wage and Hour Lawsuit”). The Wage and Hour Lawsuit was filed by two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. employees in December 2006 and purports to have been brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI-affiliated employees who performed work for which they were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay was owed. Although the court initially conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods employees, the court granted our motion to decertify the class on September 9, 2011. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA, failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract, violations of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit. Bryant, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. 3:07-CV-5696-SI; in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This lawsuit was filed on November 8, 2007 against SCI and various subsidiaries and individuals. It is related to the Wage and Hour Lawsuit, raising similar claims and brought by the same attorneys. This lawsuit has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and is now Case No. 08-CV-00891-JFC. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit. Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-07359602; in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. These cases were filed on December 5, 2007 by counsel for plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit. These cases assert state law claims similar to the federal claims asserted in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit. These cases were removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division. The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI. On December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action. The plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification. On March 9, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs’ renewed motions to certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases. The plaintiffs have also (i) filed additional lawsuits with similar allegations seeking class certification of state law claims in different states, and (ii) made a large number of demands for arbitration. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in these lawsuits. Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. 08-CV-83; in the U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix Division. Counsel for plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit filed this case on January 17, 2008, against SCI and various related entities and individuals asserting FLSA and other ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay for overtime. In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees. On April 20, 2011, the court granted our motion to decertify the class. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit. Southern, et al. v. SCI Kentucky Funeral Services, Inc.; Case No. 11CIO6501; in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Division Eight, Kentucky. This lawsuit was filed on October 6, 2011 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked in Kentucky as funeral directors. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of Kentucky wage and hour laws, and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and exemplary relief, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post judgment interest. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit. The ultimate outcome of the matters described above cannot be determined at this time. We intend to vigorously defend all of the above lawsuits; however, an adverse decision in one or more of such matters could have a material effect on us, our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows

Commitments and Contingencies

Insurance Loss Reserves

We purchase comprehensive general liability, morticians’ and cemetery professional liability, automobile liability, and workers’ compensation insurance coverage structured with high deductibles. The high-deductible insurance program means we are primarily self-insured for claims and associated costs and losses covered by these policies. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we have self-insurance reserves of $53.1 million and $52.7 million, respectively.

Litigation

We are a party to various litigation matters, investigations, and proceedings. For each of our outstanding legal matters, we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter, possible legal or settlement strategies, and the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the lawsuits described herein; however, if we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and can be reasonably estimated, we establish the necessary accruals. We hold certain insurance policies that may reduce cash outflows with respect to an adverse outcome of certain of these litigation matters. We accrue such insurance recoveries when they become probable of being paid and can be reasonably estimated.

Burial Practices Claims. We are named as a defendant in various lawsuits alleging improper burial practices at certain of our cemetery locations. These lawsuits include but are not limited to the Garcia, Sands, Zinn and Baio lawsuits described in the following paragraphs.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., was filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 04-25646 CA 32. Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia. Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the decedent could not be readily located. Subsequently, the decedent’s grave was located and verified. In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps, and surveys at the cemetery. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class action complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. On May 4, 2011, the trial court certified a class and we are appealing that ruling. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

F. Charles Sands, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Eden Memorial Park, et al.; Case No. BC421528; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles — Central District. This case was filed in September 2009 against SCI and certain subsidiaries regarding our Eden Memorial Park cemetery in Mission Hills, California. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. The plaintiff claims the cemetery damaged and desecrated burials in order to prepare adjoining graves for subsequent burials. In February 2012, the court held a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for class certification and, so far, no order has been issued relating to that hearing. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

David Zinn and Michael Graff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. 502012CA006536MB, in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County of Florida. This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the preceding Sands case on April 5, 2012 regarding our Star of David Memorial Gardens Cemetery and Funeral Chapel & Bailey Memorial Gardens located in North Lauderdale, Florida. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. The plaintiffs allege the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial operations and did not disclose them to customers. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

Michele Baio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beth David Memorial Gardens, Inc. et al.; Case No. 502012CA006532MB, in the Circuit Court of the 15^th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County of Florida. This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the preceding Sands and Zinn cases on April 5, 2012 regarding the Beth David Memorial Gardens and Chapel located in Hollywood, Florida. Although we acquired the cemetery in connection with our 2006 acquisition of Alderwoods Group, Inc., we never managed the cemetery and sold it to a third party shortly after closing on the Alderwoods acquisition. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. The plaintiff alleges the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial operations and did not disclose them to customers. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

Antitrust Claims. We are named as a defendant in an antitrust case filed in 2005. The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394; Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Houston (“Funeral Consumers Case”). This was a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers throughout the United States alleging that we and several other companies involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive conduct associated with the sale of caskets. Based on the case proceeding as a class action, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion, before trebling. However, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action. We deny that we engaged in anticompetitive practices related to our casket sales, and we have filed reports of our experts, which vigorously dispute the validity of the plaintiffs’ damages theories and calculations. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims on September 24, 2010, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal on October 19, 2010. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

Wage and Hour Claims. We are named a defendant in various lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state laws regulating wage and hour overtime pay, including but not limited to the Prise, Bryant, Bryant, Helm, Stickle, and Southern lawsuits described in the following paragraphs.

Prise, et al., v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Service Corporation International; Cause No. 06-164; in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “Wage and Hour Lawsuit”). The Wage and Hour Lawsuit was filed by two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. employees in December 2006 and purports to have been brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI-affiliated employees who performed work for which they were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay was owed. Although the court initially conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods employees, the court granted our motion to decertify the class on September 9, 2011.

Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA, failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract, violations of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

Bryant, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. 3:07-CV-5696-SI; in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This lawsuit was filed on November 8, 2007 against SCI and various subsidiaries and individuals. It is related to the Wage and Hour Lawsuit, raising similar claims and brought by the same attorneys. This lawsuit has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and is now Case No. 08-CV-00891-JFC. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-07359602; in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. These cases were filed on December 5, 2007 by counsel for plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit. These cases assert state law claims similar to the federal claims asserted in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit. These cases were removed to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland Division. The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI. On December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the case as a class action. The plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification. On March 9, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs’ renewed motions to certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases. The plaintiffs have also (i) filed additional lawsuits with similar allegations seeking class certification of state law claims in different states, and (ii) made a large number of demands for arbitration. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in these lawsuits.

Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case No. 08-CV-83; in the U.S. District Court for Arizona, Phoenix Division. Counsel for plaintiffs in the Wage and Hour Lawsuit filed this case on January 17, 2008, against SCI and various related entities and individuals asserting FLSA and other ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay for overtime. In September 2009, the Court conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions of SCI affiliated employees. On April 20, 2011, the court granted our motion to decertify the class. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

Southern, et al. v. SCI Kentucky Funeral Services, Inc.; Case No. 11CIO6501; in the Jefferson Circuit Court, Division Eight, Kentucky. This lawsuit was filed on October 6, 2011 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked in Kentucky as funeral directors. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of Kentucky wage and hour laws, and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and exemplary relief, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post judgment interest. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit.

The ultimate outcome of the matters described above cannot be determined at this time. We intend to vigorously defend all of the above lawsuits; however, an adverse decision in one or more of such matters could have a material effect on us, our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows