Casey Kasem was one of the most recognizable voices in American broadcasting. As host of American Top 40 and a prolific voice actor, he shaped pop culture for decades. His death on June 15, 2014, in Gig Harbor, Washington, sparked a series of court fights that have become a cautionary case study in elder care, end-of-life decision making, and post-death control of remains. 

In the final months, Kasem’s adult children from his first marriage clashed with his wife, Jean Kasem, over access to him, medical decision making, and later where he would be laid to rest. Courts granted daughter Kerri temporary authority to make healthcare decisions shortly before he died, but disputes continued after death over control of the remains and claims of wrongful death. By late 2019, the civil wrongful death case settled and was dismissed, yet the legal themes remain highly instructive today.

Conservatorship and medical authority.

On May 12, 2014, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge granted Kerri Kasem temporary conservatorship. That order allowed access to medical records and decision-making authority following weeks of conflict over Casey’s whereabouts and care. Temporary conservatorships can be critical when a patient lacks capacity and family members disagree about treatment or placement. The Kasem matter underscored how courts balance competing claims by appointing an authorized decision maker on an expedited basis.

Hospitalization and end-of-life care.

In early June 2014, Kasem was admitted to St. Anthony Hospital in Gig Harbor with an infected bedsore. News reports contemporaneous with his hospitalization described wound care and antibiotic therapy. He had advanced dementia, and his condition deteriorated. Decisions around artificial nutrition and hydration were litigated in court during his final days. These facts show the kinds of complex medical-legal questions that can arise when advanced directives and family dynamics collide.

Control of remains and burial in Norway.

After Kasem’s death, a judge issued orders aimed at preserving the body for a possible autopsy, yet the remains were moved from a Washington funeral home. Months later, Kasem was buried in Oslo, Norway, a decision that divided the family and drew international attention. Litigation over medical records and the handling of the remains continued into 2015. This sequence highlights the legal doctrine commonly called the right of sepulcher, which turns on who has statutory authority to control disposition and on any written burial wishes.

Criminal and civil proceedings.

In 2018, Gig Harbor police reviewed a complaint alleging criminal responsibility for Kasem’s death. Investigators announced they found no evidence of a crime and referred the matter to prosecutors for review. On the civil side, Kasem’s children and brother filed a wrongful death and elder-abuse lawsuit in 2015 against Jean Kasem, which Jean contested and countersued. The parties filed a joint request in December 2019 to dismiss the lawsuit and countersuit after a confidential settlement. The end of the civil case did not erase the lessons around proof burdens, medical causation, and the emotional costs of prolonged litigation.

Insurance and estate-administration complications.

In late 2014, MetLife brought an interpleader action in Los Angeles federal court to resolve competing claims to a $2 million life-insurance policy connected to Kasem. Interpleader suits are routine in high-conflict estates and illustrate how disputes can freeze distributions until a court decides who is entitled. Combined with fee petitions and record-disclosure suits, these cases show how even well-known estates can become mired in procedural fights that delay closure.

Blended families and fiduciary clarity.

The Kasem litigation shows how second-marriage dynamics intensify the need for clear fiduciary designations. Documents should name who controls healthcare decisions during incapacity and who controls disposition of remains after death. Courts can impose a solution through temporary conservatorships, but that is a reactive tool. Proactive planning, including a well-drafted healthcare proxy, HIPAA release, and written burial instructions, reduces conflict and speeds medical decisions when minutes matter. The 2014 orders conferring temporary authority on Kerri reflect the court’s need to designate a single decision maker when the family could not agree.

Guarding against post-death disputes.

The burial in Norway illustrates the importance of written, accessible funeral instructions. Where a decedent’s wishes are known and properly documented, the person with statutory authority should carry them out. When wishes are disputed or unclear, courts may have to resolve control questions quickly. Families should keep originals and copies of directives with counsel and the nominated agent, and confirm that providers know who is authorized to act. Media coverage of the remains being moved and the unexpected foreign burial shows how gaps in documentation can lead to results family members view as contrary to a loved one’s intent.

Civil versus criminal pathways.

The 2018 police review illustrates the difference between civil negligence or elder-abuse claims and criminal liability. A police finding of no evidence of a crime does not prevent a civil plaintiff from pursuing wrongful death or elder-abuse claims, which have different burdens of proof. The 2019 settlement ended the civil case without a trial, a common outcome in complex estate-related disputes where both sides face high litigation risk and cost.

Casey Kasem’s final months and the years that followed offer a clear message for families in 2025. Choose an agent for healthcare decisions, write detailed burial instructions, and coordinate those documents with your estate plan. When disagreements escalate, courts can appoint a fiduciary and can protect evidence for later review. Criminal investigations, civil suits, and interpleader actions may proceed in parallel, and each has its own standards and timelines. The Kasem matters, including the 2019 settlement and the 2018 police review, continue to serve as a practical guide for preventing avoidable conflict and protecting a legacy with careful planning.