Commitments and Contingencies Level 1 (Notes)	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
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 September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we have self-insurance reserves of $60.7 million and $57.5 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, and Schwartz 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 appealed that ruling. On July 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the order certifying the case. 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 compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. The plaintiff alleges the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers. After a hearing in February 2012, the court in May 2012 issued an order certifying classes of cemetery plot owners and their families based on alleged Company misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure of material facts regarding alleged improper burial practices pertaining to the period from February 1985 to September 2009. Pursuant to a court order, the Company may be precluded from making certain arguments that challenge the sufficiency of plaintiff's physical evidence, although the extent to which that order will apply at trial remains unclear. The case is scheduled for trial in November 2013. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages. Barbara Schwartz & Carol Neitlich, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., et al.; Case No. 2012CA015954, In the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. This lawsuit has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and is now Case No. 9:12-CV-80180-DMM. This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the Sands case regarding our Star of David Memorial Gardens Cemetery and Funeral Chapel and Bailey Memorial Gardens located in North Lauderdale, Florida. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. Plaintiffs allege the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee the cemetery operations. On our motion, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in March 2013. The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages. 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 Bryant and Helm lawsuits described below. 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. 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 and dismissed the Helm case. The Helm plaintiff is appealing the court's order decertifying her claims. The individual claims in the Bryant case are still pending. 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. Claims Regarding Acquisition of Stewart Enterprises. We are named as a defendant in the following lawsuit. Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans. This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against the proposed combination. We have filed exceptions to the plaintiffs’ complaint, but the case has been stayed until after the closing of the acquisition. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages. 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 September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we have self-insurance reserves of $60.7 million and $57.5 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, and Schwartz 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 appealed that ruling. On July 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the order certifying the case. 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 compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee cemetery operations. The plaintiff alleges the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers. After a hearing in February 2012, the court in May 2012 issued an order certifying classes of cemetery plot owners and their families based on alleged Company misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure of material facts regarding alleged improper burial practices pertaining to the period from February 1985 to September 2009. Pursuant to a court order, the Company may be precluded from making certain arguments that challenge the sufficiency of plaintiff's physical evidence, although the extent to which that order will apply at trial remains unclear. The case is scheduled for trial in November 2013. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

Barbara Schwartz & Carol Neitlich, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., et al.; Case No. 2012CA015954, In the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. This lawsuit has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and is now Case No. 9:12-CV-80180-DMM. This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the Sands case regarding our Star of David Memorial Gardens Cemetery and Funeral Chapel and Bailey Memorial Gardens located in North Lauderdale, Florida. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and their families. Plaintiffs allege the cemetery engaged in wrongful burial practices and did not disclose them to customers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee the cemetery operations. On our motion, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in March 2013. The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.

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 Bryant and Helm lawsuits described below.

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. 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 and dismissed the Helm case. The Helm plaintiff is appealing the court's order decertifying her claims. The individual claims in the Bryant case are still pending. 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.

Claims Regarding Acquisition of Stewart Enterprises. We are named as a defendant in the following lawsuit.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans. This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against the proposed combination. We have filed exceptions to the plaintiffs’ complaint, but the case has been stayed until after the closing of the acquisition. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages.

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.