42
Fla. L. Weekly D453aTop of Form
Fla. L. Weekly D453aTop of Form
Wrongful
death — Loss of consortium — Spouse who was not married to a decedent at time
of decedent’s injury may not recover consortium damages as part of wrongful
death suit — Wrongful Death Act does not, directly or indirectly, abrogate or
supersede the common law requirement that spouse must be married to injured
party at time of injury to recover for loss of consortium — Latent injuries —
Court cannot set aside common law “marriage before injury” rule in cases in
which injury is a “latent injury” that does not reveal itself until after
parties marry, but must follow that rule until legislature passes a statute
superseding this common law requirement
death — Loss of consortium — Spouse who was not married to a decedent at time
of decedent’s injury may not recover consortium damages as part of wrongful
death suit — Wrongful Death Act does not, directly or indirectly, abrogate or
supersede the common law requirement that spouse must be married to injured
party at time of injury to recover for loss of consortium — Latent injuries —
Court cannot set aside common law “marriage before injury” rule in cases in
which injury is a “latent injury” that does not reveal itself until after
parties marry, but must follow that rule until legislature passes a statute
superseding this common law requirement
JANIS
KELLY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John K. Kelly, Appellant, v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, UNION CARBIDE CORP., PREMIX- MARBLETITE MANUFACTURING
CO., and IMPERIAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellees. 4th District. Case No.
4D15-4666. February 22, 2017. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No.
14-018038 (27). Counsel: Paulo R. Lima, Juan P. Bauta II, and Amanda A. Kessler
of The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellant. Marie A. Borland of Hill,
Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, and Stuart A. Weinstein and Laura E. Eggnatz
of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee
Georgia-Pacific, LLC. Matthew J. Conigliaro of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt,
P.A., Tampa, and Ryan S. Cobbs of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm
Beach, for appellee Union Carbide Corporation.
KELLY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of John K. Kelly, Appellant, v.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, UNION CARBIDE CORP., PREMIX- MARBLETITE MANUFACTURING
CO., and IMPERIAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellees. 4th District. Case No.
4D15-4666. February 22, 2017. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No.
14-018038 (27). Counsel: Paulo R. Lima, Juan P. Bauta II, and Amanda A. Kessler
of The Ferraro Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellant. Marie A. Borland of Hill,
Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, and Stuart A. Weinstein and Laura E. Eggnatz
of Shapiro, Blasi, Wasserman & Hermann, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee
Georgia-Pacific, LLC. Matthew J. Conigliaro of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt,
P.A., Tampa, and Ryan S. Cobbs of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm
Beach, for appellee Union Carbide Corporation.
(LEVINE,
J.) The question presented for our review is whether the Florida Wrongful Death
Act supersedes the common law requirement that a spouse must be married to the
decedent before the date of the decedent’s injury to recover damages for loss
of consortium. Stated another way, did the legislative enactment, giving the
estate’s representatives and survivors a remedy not found in the common law,
“explicitly,” “clearly,” and “unequivocally” abrogate the common law
requirements to recover consortium damages when those damages are awarded under
the Wrongful Death Act. Because there can be no change in the common law unless
the statute is “explicit and clear in that regard” and the Wrongful Death Act
does not “explicitly,” “clearly,” and “unequivocally” abrogate the common law
rule, we hold that a spouse who was not married to a decedent at the time of
the decedent’s injury may not recover consortium damages as part of a wrongful
death suit. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in entering an order
of dismissal, and subsequently entering a final judgment. We therefore affirm.
J.) The question presented for our review is whether the Florida Wrongful Death
Act supersedes the common law requirement that a spouse must be married to the
decedent before the date of the decedent’s injury to recover damages for loss
of consortium. Stated another way, did the legislative enactment, giving the
estate’s representatives and survivors a remedy not found in the common law,
“explicitly,” “clearly,” and “unequivocally” abrogate the common law
requirements to recover consortium damages when those damages are awarded under
the Wrongful Death Act. Because there can be no change in the common law unless
the statute is “explicit and clear in that regard” and the Wrongful Death Act
does not “explicitly,” “clearly,” and “unequivocally” abrogate the common law
rule, we hold that a spouse who was not married to a decedent at the time of
the decedent’s injury may not recover consortium damages as part of a wrongful
death suit. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in entering an order
of dismissal, and subsequently entering a final judgment. We therefore affirm.
John
Kelly and his wife, Janis Kelly, filed an action against appellees for
negligence, strict liability, and for Janis Kelly’s loss of consortium. During
the course of the litigation, the husband died, and the wife amended the
complaint, dropping her loss of consortium claim and adding a wrongful death
claim, which included a demand for loss of consortium damages.
Kelly and his wife, Janis Kelly, filed an action against appellees for
negligence, strict liability, and for Janis Kelly’s loss of consortium. During
the course of the litigation, the husband died, and the wife amended the
complaint, dropping her loss of consortium claim and adding a wrongful death
claim, which included a demand for loss of consortium damages.
The
decedent worked in construction and was exposed to asbestos during the years of
1973 to 1974. The decedent and appellant did not marry until 1976. In 2014, the
decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma and alleged that his exposure to
asbestos caused the disease. The decedent died from mesothelioma in 2015.
decedent worked in construction and was exposed to asbestos during the years of
1973 to 1974. The decedent and appellant did not marry until 1976. In 2014, the
decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma and alleged that his exposure to
asbestos caused the disease. The decedent died from mesothelioma in 2015.
Appellees
moved to dismiss the wife’s wrongful death claim, arguing that a spouse must be
married to the injured party at the time of the injury for the spouse to bring
a claim for loss of consortium and that the wrongful death claim sought damages
for loss of consortium. Appellees argued it was undisputed that appellant was
not married to the decedent when the decedent was injured. The trial court
granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed that portion of appellant’s
complaint seeking consortium damages under the Wrongful Death Act. Appellant
then voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims for negligence and strict
liability. The trial court entered a final judgment, and this appeal ensued.
moved to dismiss the wife’s wrongful death claim, arguing that a spouse must be
married to the injured party at the time of the injury for the spouse to bring
a claim for loss of consortium and that the wrongful death claim sought damages
for loss of consortium. Appellees argued it was undisputed that appellant was
not married to the decedent when the decedent was injured. The trial court
granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed that portion of appellant’s
complaint seeking consortium damages under the Wrongful Death Act. Appellant
then voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims for negligence and strict
liability. The trial court entered a final judgment, and this appeal ensued.
The
standard of review that we use is de novo. Solorzano v. First Union Mortg.
Corp., 896 So. 2d 847, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
standard of review that we use is de novo. Solorzano v. First Union Mortg.
Corp., 896 So. 2d 847, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
The
tort of wrongful death did not exist at common law, and a personal injury claim
did not survive the death of the injured party. Nissan Motor Co. v. Phlieger,
508 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla. 1987). As a result, the Florida Legislature created a
cause of action, wrongful death, to allow for a claim that survived the death
of the injured party. See § 768.16, Fla. Stat. (2015).
tort of wrongful death did not exist at common law, and a personal injury claim
did not survive the death of the injured party. Nissan Motor Co. v. Phlieger,
508 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla. 1987). As a result, the Florida Legislature created a
cause of action, wrongful death, to allow for a claim that survived the death
of the injured party. See § 768.16, Fla. Stat. (2015).
The
purpose of the Florida Wrongful Death Act is to provide a “separate and
independent” cause of action since the original cause of action for personal
injury did “not survive” the death of the injured party. City of Pompano
Beach v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., 709 So. 2d 603, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The
passage of the Wrongful Death Act remedied this “anomaly.” Variety
Children’s Hosp. v. Perkins, 445 So. 2d 1010, 1012 (Fla. 1983). It is “thus
clear that the paramount purpose of the Florida Wrongful Death Act is to
prevent a tortfeasor from evading liability for his misconduct when such
misconduct results in death.” Id. Thus, the statute explicitly, clearly,
and unequivocally supersedes the common law by allowing the wrongful death
cause of action to proceed even after the death of the injured party. See
id.
purpose of the Florida Wrongful Death Act is to provide a “separate and
independent” cause of action since the original cause of action for personal
injury did “not survive” the death of the injured party. City of Pompano
Beach v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., 709 So. 2d 603, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The
passage of the Wrongful Death Act remedied this “anomaly.” Variety
Children’s Hosp. v. Perkins, 445 So. 2d 1010, 1012 (Fla. 1983). It is “thus
clear that the paramount purpose of the Florida Wrongful Death Act is to
prevent a tortfeasor from evading liability for his misconduct when such
misconduct results in death.” Id. Thus, the statute explicitly, clearly,
and unequivocally supersedes the common law by allowing the wrongful death
cause of action to proceed even after the death of the injured party. See
id.
Under
the Wrongful Death Act, the decedent’s personal representative “shall recover
for the benefit of the decedent’s survivors and estate all damages, as
specified in this act, caused by the injury resulting in death.” § 768.20, Fla.
Stat. (2015). Survivors are defined as
the Wrongful Death Act, the decedent’s personal representative “shall recover
for the benefit of the decedent’s survivors and estate all damages, as
specified in this act, caused by the injury resulting in death.” § 768.20, Fla.
Stat. (2015). Survivors are defined as
the decedent’s spouse,
children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for
support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters. It
includes the child born out of wedlock of a mother, but not the child born out
of wedlock of the father unless the father has recognized a responsibility for
the child’s support.
children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for
support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters. It
includes the child born out of wedlock of a mother, but not the child born out
of wedlock of the father unless the father has recognized a responsibility for
the child’s support.
§
768.18(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
768.18(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
As
to damages, the Wrongful Death Act provides:
to damages, the Wrongful Death Act provides:
(1) Each survivor may recover
the value of lost support and services from the date of the decedent’s injury
to her or his death, with interest, and future loss of support and services from
the date of death and reduced to present value. In evaluating loss of support
and services, the survivor’s relationship to the decedent, the amount of the
decedent’s probable net income available for distribution to the particular
survivor, and the replacement value of the decedent’s services to the survivor
may be considered. In computing the duration of future losses, the joint life
expectancies of the survivor and the decedent and the period of minority, in
the case of healthy minor children, may be considered.
the value of lost support and services from the date of the decedent’s injury
to her or his death, with interest, and future loss of support and services from
the date of death and reduced to present value. In evaluating loss of support
and services, the survivor’s relationship to the decedent, the amount of the
decedent’s probable net income available for distribution to the particular
survivor, and the replacement value of the decedent’s services to the survivor
may be considered. In computing the duration of future losses, the joint life
expectancies of the survivor and the decedent and the period of minority, in
the case of healthy minor children, may be considered.
(2) The surviving spouse may
also recover for loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection and for
mental pain and suffering from the date of injury.
also recover for loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection and for
mental pain and suffering from the date of injury.
§
768.21, Fla. Stat. (2015). These damages “are inclusive of a spouse’s loss of
consortium damages” and allows for a spouse to recover damages for loss of
consortium even after the decedent’s death. See ACandS, Inc. v. Redd,
703 So. 2d 492, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (stating that “the legislature did not
intend for a spouse’s consortium claim to survive an injured spouse’s death
from his or her injuries by the fact that the legislature has provided for
wrongful death damages that are inclusive of a spouse’s loss of consortium
damages”). Indeed, in this case, after the decedent died, appellant amended her
complaint to replace her loss of consortium claim with a wrongful death claim
that included a demand for the same exact damages as her prior loss of
consortium claim.
768.21, Fla. Stat. (2015). These damages “are inclusive of a spouse’s loss of
consortium damages” and allows for a spouse to recover damages for loss of
consortium even after the decedent’s death. See ACandS, Inc. v. Redd,
703 So. 2d 492, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (stating that “the legislature did not
intend for a spouse’s consortium claim to survive an injured spouse’s death
from his or her injuries by the fact that the legislature has provided for
wrongful death damages that are inclusive of a spouse’s loss of consortium
damages”). Indeed, in this case, after the decedent died, appellant amended her
complaint to replace her loss of consortium claim with a wrongful death claim
that included a demand for the same exact damages as her prior loss of
consortium claim.
Finally,
the legislature announced that the public policy for the creation of the
statute was to “shift the losses resulting when wrongful death occurs from the
survivors of the decedent to the wrongdoer.” § 768.17, Fla. Stat. (2015). The
statute is “remedial” and “shall be liberally construed.” Id.
Nevertheless, although the statute is “remedial,” “we cannot construe the
statutory provisions so ‘liberally’ as to reach a result contrary to the clear
intent of the legislature.” Stern v. Miller, 348 So. 2d 303, 308 (Fla.
1977).
the legislature announced that the public policy for the creation of the
statute was to “shift the losses resulting when wrongful death occurs from the
survivors of the decedent to the wrongdoer.” § 768.17, Fla. Stat. (2015). The
statute is “remedial” and “shall be liberally construed.” Id.
Nevertheless, although the statute is “remedial,” “we cannot construe the
statutory provisions so ‘liberally’ as to reach a result contrary to the clear
intent of the legislature.” Stern v. Miller, 348 So. 2d 303, 308 (Fla.
1977).
Appellant
argues that the passage of the Wrongful Death Act, explicitly, clearly, and
unequivocally superseded the common law relating to the damages resulting from
“loss of consortium.” Under the loss of consortium tort, the plaintiff may
recover damages for the loss of
argues that the passage of the Wrongful Death Act, explicitly, clearly, and
unequivocally superseded the common law relating to the damages resulting from
“loss of consortium.” Under the loss of consortium tort, the plaintiff may
recover damages for the loss of
the companionship and
fellowship of husband and wife and the right of each to the company,
cooperation and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. Consortium means
much more than mere sexual relation and consists, also, of that affection,
solace, comfort, companionship, conjugal life, fellowship, society and
assistance so necessary to a successful marriage.
fellowship of husband and wife and the right of each to the company,
cooperation and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. Consortium means
much more than mere sexual relation and consists, also, of that affection,
solace, comfort, companionship, conjugal life, fellowship, society and
assistance so necessary to a successful marriage.
Gates
v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1971).
v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1971).
Significantly,
under the common law of loss of consortium, the parties must have been married
to one another at the time of the injury to recover damages for loss of
consortium. Tremblay v. Carter, 390 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
As the court in Tremblay explained, the rationale for the common law
rule is that
under the common law of loss of consortium, the parties must have been married
to one another at the time of the injury to recover damages for loss of
consortium. Tremblay v. Carter, 390 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
As the court in Tremblay explained, the rationale for the common law
rule is that
[s]ince a cause of action for
personal injury and the derivative rights flowing therefrom ordinarily accrue
when the tort is committed, the courts concluded that to permit an unmarried
person to claim loss of consortium upon his marriage to an injured spouse would
have the effect of allowing him to marry into the cause of action.
personal injury and the derivative rights flowing therefrom ordinarily accrue
when the tort is committed, the courts concluded that to permit an unmarried
person to claim loss of consortium upon his marriage to an injured spouse would
have the effect of allowing him to marry into the cause of action.
Id.
In
the present case, the decedent’s injury occurred when he was exposed to
asbestos. See Am. Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120, 129 (Fla.
2011) (“Here, a foreign substance — asbestos fibers — were inhaled and became
embedded in the lungs of the plaintiffs without their knowledge or consent.
This, like the electric shock suffered by the plaintiff in Clark [v.
Choctawhatchee, 73 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2011)], constitutes an actual injury
that has been inflicted upon the bodies of the plaintiffs.”). Thus, because the
decedent was injured before appellant married him, for appellant to prevail in
her claim, we must find that the Wrongful Death Act specifically supersedes the
common law of loss of consortium.
the present case, the decedent’s injury occurred when he was exposed to
asbestos. See Am. Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So. 3d 120, 129 (Fla.
2011) (“Here, a foreign substance — asbestos fibers — were inhaled and became
embedded in the lungs of the plaintiffs without their knowledge or consent.
This, like the electric shock suffered by the plaintiff in Clark [v.
Choctawhatchee, 73 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2011)], constitutes an actual injury
that has been inflicted upon the bodies of the plaintiffs.”). Thus, because the
decedent was injured before appellant married him, for appellant to prevail in
her claim, we must find that the Wrongful Death Act specifically supersedes the
common law of loss of consortium.
We
look to the language of the Wrongful Death Act. In interpreting a statute, “the
plain meaning of the statutory language is the first consideration.” St.
Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamm, 414 So. 2d 1071, 1073 (Fla. 1982).
There is, of course, the rule of statutory interpretation stating that statutes
in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed. Carlile v.
Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 354 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 1977). But
since the Wrongful Death Act is a remedial statute, “the general rule of strict
construction does not, in Florida, apply to a remedial statute in derogation of
the common law.” Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Meeks, 863 So. 2d 287,
290 (Fla. 2003). See also Perkins, 445 So. 2d at 1012 (basing its
decision “upon the language contained in section 768.19, Florida Statutes (1981)”);
Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 833 So. 2d 109, 118 (Fla. 2002)
(holding that “the language of the Act” precluded the plaintiff from
recovering).
look to the language of the Wrongful Death Act. In interpreting a statute, “the
plain meaning of the statutory language is the first consideration.” St.
Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamm, 414 So. 2d 1071, 1073 (Fla. 1982).
There is, of course, the rule of statutory interpretation stating that statutes
in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed. Carlile v.
Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 354 So. 2d 362, 364 (Fla. 1977). But
since the Wrongful Death Act is a remedial statute, “the general rule of strict
construction does not, in Florida, apply to a remedial statute in derogation of
the common law.” Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Meeks, 863 So. 2d 287,
290 (Fla. 2003). See also Perkins, 445 So. 2d at 1012 (basing its
decision “upon the language contained in section 768.19, Florida Statutes (1981)”);
Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 833 So. 2d 109, 118 (Fla. 2002)
(holding that “the language of the Act” precluded the plaintiff from
recovering).
Whether
the legislature intended for the Wrongful Death Act to supersede the common law
of loss of consortium “depends upon the legislative intent as manifested in the
language of the statute.” Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So.
2d 914, 918 (Fla. 1990). “The presumption is that no change in the common law
is intended unless the statute is explicit and clear in that regard.” Id. Thus,
“[u]nless a statute unequivocally states that it changes the common law, or is
so repugnant to the common law that the two cannot coexist, the statute will
not be held to have changed the common law.” Id.
the legislature intended for the Wrongful Death Act to supersede the common law
of loss of consortium “depends upon the legislative intent as manifested in the
language of the statute.” Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So.
2d 914, 918 (Fla. 1990). “The presumption is that no change in the common law
is intended unless the statute is explicit and clear in that regard.” Id. Thus,
“[u]nless a statute unequivocally states that it changes the common law, or is
so repugnant to the common law that the two cannot coexist, the statute will
not be held to have changed the common law.” Id.
In Thornber,
the “express language” of the statute in question made “no mention of whether
it superseded the common law with regard to the circumstances” at issue. Id.
Thus, the statute did not “replace the common law completely.” Id. See
also Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Guilder, 23 So. 3d 867, 870 (Fla. 3d DCA
2009) (finding that the legislature clearly intended to create a child’s right
to parental consortium). Indeed, changes to the common law must come through
the legislature in the form of statutes. See Kitchen v. K-Mart Corp.,
697 So. 2d 1200, 1207 (Fla. 1987) (“[A] statute will not displace the common
law unless the legislature expressly indicates an intention to do so.”).
the “express language” of the statute in question made “no mention of whether
it superseded the common law with regard to the circumstances” at issue. Id.
Thus, the statute did not “replace the common law completely.” Id. See
also Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Guilder, 23 So. 3d 867, 870 (Fla. 3d DCA
2009) (finding that the legislature clearly intended to create a child’s right
to parental consortium). Indeed, changes to the common law must come through
the legislature in the form of statutes. See Kitchen v. K-Mart Corp.,
697 So. 2d 1200, 1207 (Fla. 1987) (“[A] statute will not displace the common
law unless the legislature expressly indicates an intention to do so.”).
Applying
the principles of Thornber to the present case leads us to the
conclusion that the statutory language of the Wrongful Death Act does not,
directly or indirectly, abrogate or supersede the common law requirement that
the spouse must be married to the injured party at the time of the injury to
recover for loss of consortium. Here, the plain language of the statute shows
that the legislature clearly intended that the Wrongful Death Act allow for a
surviving spouse to recover “consortium-type” damages. See ACandS, 703
So. 2d at 494. The legislature is presumed to know of the common law limitation
for recovering loss of consortium damages. Williams v. Jones, 326 So. 2d
425, 435 (Fla. 1975) (“[T]he Legislature is presumed to know the existing law
when it enacts a statute . . . .”). However, despite the clear intention
that the Wrongful Death Act allow for the recovery of consortium damages after
the decedent’s death, nothing in the statute abrogates the common law marriage
before injury rule. Therefore, because the legislature did not explicitly and
clearly overrule the common law limitation on loss of consortium when enacting
the Wrongful Death Act, the common law marriage before injury rule was
incorporated into the Act. See Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Soto v. Soto, 28
So. 3d 171, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that Florida’s child support statute
should be read in light of settled common law precedents limiting the type of
gifts that can be credited against retroactive child support obligations).
the principles of Thornber to the present case leads us to the
conclusion that the statutory language of the Wrongful Death Act does not,
directly or indirectly, abrogate or supersede the common law requirement that
the spouse must be married to the injured party at the time of the injury to
recover for loss of consortium. Here, the plain language of the statute shows
that the legislature clearly intended that the Wrongful Death Act allow for a
surviving spouse to recover “consortium-type” damages. See ACandS, 703
So. 2d at 494. The legislature is presumed to know of the common law limitation
for recovering loss of consortium damages. Williams v. Jones, 326 So. 2d
425, 435 (Fla. 1975) (“[T]he Legislature is presumed to know the existing law
when it enacts a statute . . . .”). However, despite the clear intention
that the Wrongful Death Act allow for the recovery of consortium damages after
the decedent’s death, nothing in the statute abrogates the common law marriage
before injury rule. Therefore, because the legislature did not explicitly and
clearly overrule the common law limitation on loss of consortium when enacting
the Wrongful Death Act, the common law marriage before injury rule was
incorporated into the Act. See Dep’t of Rev. ex rel. Soto v. Soto, 28
So. 3d 171, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that Florida’s child support statute
should be read in light of settled common law precedents limiting the type of
gifts that can be credited against retroactive child support obligations).
Further,
there appears to be no reason why the common law requirement — that the
injured spouse and the surviving spouse be married prior to the date of injury
— cannot coexist with the Wrongful Death Act. Nothing in the Wrongful Death
Act is “so repugnant to the common law that the two cannot coexist.” Thornber,
568 So. 2d at 918. The common law rule merely limits the circumstances for when
the surviving spouse may recover “consortium-type” damages under the wrongful
death statute for the “decedent’s companionship and protection and for mental
pain and suffering from the date of injury.” § 768.21(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).
there appears to be no reason why the common law requirement — that the
injured spouse and the surviving spouse be married prior to the date of injury
— cannot coexist with the Wrongful Death Act. Nothing in the Wrongful Death
Act is “so repugnant to the common law that the two cannot coexist.” Thornber,
568 So. 2d at 918. The common law rule merely limits the circumstances for when
the surviving spouse may recover “consortium-type” damages under the wrongful
death statute for the “decedent’s companionship and protection and for mental
pain and suffering from the date of injury.” § 768.21(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).
Additionally,
we note that the plain language of the Wrongful Death Act indicates that the
legislature did not intend for a surviving spouse to recover consortium damages
if the surviving spouse was not married to the decedent prior to the date of
the decedent’s injury. The definition of “survivor” in the statute is limited
to familial relationships only, and both subsections (1) and (2) of section
768.21 clearly provide that damages are recoverable from the date of “injury.”
§§ 768.18(1), 768.21(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2015). Thus, the plain language of the
statute indicates that the legislature anticipated that the surviving spouse
would have been married to the decedent prior to the date of injury.
we note that the plain language of the Wrongful Death Act indicates that the
legislature did not intend for a surviving spouse to recover consortium damages
if the surviving spouse was not married to the decedent prior to the date of
the decedent’s injury. The definition of “survivor” in the statute is limited
to familial relationships only, and both subsections (1) and (2) of section
768.21 clearly provide that damages are recoverable from the date of “injury.”
§§ 768.18(1), 768.21(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2015). Thus, the plain language of the
statute indicates that the legislature anticipated that the surviving spouse
would have been married to the decedent prior to the date of injury.
To
read the statute to permit recovery of consortium damages where the injury
occurs prior to marriage, as the dissent does, would allow for results not
supported by the plain language of the statute. For example, two unmarried
individuals could be living together and in a relationship where one individual
is financially dependent upon the other. If one of them is injured and the two
continued living under the same arrangement for several years, then, under the
dissent’s view, so long as the couple is married a day before the injured party
dies, the newly wedded surviving spouse could recover damages from all of the
way back to when the decedent was first injured. However, given that the
legislative definition of “survivor” is limited to familial relationships only,
the legislature plainly did not intend for the surviving spouse to be able to
collect consortium damages that proceeded the marriage.
read the statute to permit recovery of consortium damages where the injury
occurs prior to marriage, as the dissent does, would allow for results not
supported by the plain language of the statute. For example, two unmarried
individuals could be living together and in a relationship where one individual
is financially dependent upon the other. If one of them is injured and the two
continued living under the same arrangement for several years, then, under the
dissent’s view, so long as the couple is married a day before the injured party
dies, the newly wedded surviving spouse could recover damages from all of the
way back to when the decedent was first injured. However, given that the
legislative definition of “survivor” is limited to familial relationships only,
the legislature plainly did not intend for the surviving spouse to be able to
collect consortium damages that proceeded the marriage.
Finally,
it would make no sense to allow a spouse to recover consortium damages under
the Wrongful Death Act simply because his or her spouse has died when that same
spouse would be prohibited from recovering the same damage under a loss of
consortium claim had his or her spouse survived. We are required to interpret
the Wrongful Death Act to avoid absurd results such as this. Allstate Ins.
Co. v. Rush, 777 So. 2d 1027, 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“In all, statutes
must be construed as to avoid an unreasonable or absurd result.”).1
it would make no sense to allow a spouse to recover consortium damages under
the Wrongful Death Act simply because his or her spouse has died when that same
spouse would be prohibited from recovering the same damage under a loss of
consortium claim had his or her spouse survived. We are required to interpret
the Wrongful Death Act to avoid absurd results such as this. Allstate Ins.
Co. v. Rush, 777 So. 2d 1027, 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“In all, statutes
must be construed as to avoid an unreasonable or absurd result.”).1
Since
the common law applies to our inquiry, we are next asked to not apply the
marriage before injury rule in cases where the injury is a “latent injury” that
does not reveal itself until after the parties marry. Appellant argues there
would be no risk, or at least a diminished risk, of a spouse “marrying into a
cause of action.” Thus, appellant contends we should not apply the marriage
before injury rule because one of the reasons for the rule is not present.
the common law applies to our inquiry, we are next asked to not apply the
marriage before injury rule in cases where the injury is a “latent injury” that
does not reveal itself until after the parties marry. Appellant argues there
would be no risk, or at least a diminished risk, of a spouse “marrying into a
cause of action.” Thus, appellant contends we should not apply the marriage
before injury rule because one of the reasons for the rule is not present.
In Fullerton
v. Hospital Corporation of America, 660 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA
1995),
v. Hospital Corporation of America, 660 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 5th DCA
1995),
Fullerton’s cause of action
arose as the result of his wife’s exposure to radiation when she was a student
trainee studying radiation technology at the hospital. Fullerton married his
wife several years after she was exposed to radiation. They did not realize
that she was injured until three years after they had married when she
developed cancer of the thyroid and had to have her thyroid removed.
arose as the result of his wife’s exposure to radiation when she was a student
trainee studying radiation technology at the hospital. Fullerton married his
wife several years after she was exposed to radiation. They did not realize
that she was injured until three years after they had married when she
developed cancer of the thyroid and had to have her thyroid removed.
The
wife argued that the court should set aside the marriage before injury rule.
However, the court concluded that “[i]n the absence of any statutory law on
this point, Florida courts are required to follow the common-law rule.” Id. at
391. The court therefore held the wife could not recover. See also §
2.01, Fla. Stat. (2015) (“The common and statute laws of England which are of a
general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down
to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state;
provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of
this state.”).
wife argued that the court should set aside the marriage before injury rule.
However, the court concluded that “[i]n the absence of any statutory law on
this point, Florida courts are required to follow the common-law rule.” Id. at
391. The court therefore held the wife could not recover. See also §
2.01, Fla. Stat. (2015) (“The common and statute laws of England which are of a
general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down
to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state;
provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of
this state.”).
Like
in Fullerton, appellant asks us to set aside the common law marriage
before injury rule. However, we, like the court in Fullerton, “are
required to follow the common-law rule” until the legislature passes a statute
superseding this common law requirement. 660 So. 2d at 391. Thus, we also
affirm the trial court on this issue.2
in Fullerton, appellant asks us to set aside the common law marriage
before injury rule. However, we, like the court in Fullerton, “are
required to follow the common-law rule” until the legislature passes a statute
superseding this common law requirement. 660 So. 2d at 391. Thus, we also
affirm the trial court on this issue.2
In
conclusion, we affirm the trial court and hold that the Florida Wrongful Death
Act does not clearly or explicitly abrogate or overturn the common law
requirement that the decedent and surviving spouse be married prior to the date
of injury to recover consortium damages.3 Although there may be persuasive
policy reasons for superseding this common law rule, especially in the present
case where the injury is latent, such a change may come only from the
legislature by statutory enactment.
conclusion, we affirm the trial court and hold that the Florida Wrongful Death
Act does not clearly or explicitly abrogate or overturn the common law
requirement that the decedent and surviving spouse be married prior to the date
of injury to recover consortium damages.3 Although there may be persuasive
policy reasons for superseding this common law rule, especially in the present
case where the injury is latent, such a change may come only from the
legislature by statutory enactment.
Affirmed.
(CONNER,
J., concurs. TAYLOR, J., dissents with opinion.)
(CONNER,
J., concurs. TAYLOR, J., dissents with opinion.)
__________________
1Although
the dissent claims that the opinion of this court is the only one of its kind
in the United States, we must emphasize that exceedingly few courts have ever
even considered this issue and none have interpreted Florida’s Wrongful Death
Act or Florida’s common law specifically. See Wade R. Habeeb, Right
of spouse to maintain action for wrongful death as affected by fact that injury
resulting in death occurred before marriage, 69 A.L.R.3d 1046 (2011 update)
(noting that there is “little authority” for the proposition that a wrongful
death statute abrogates the marriage before injury rule).
the dissent claims that the opinion of this court is the only one of its kind
in the United States, we must emphasize that exceedingly few courts have ever
even considered this issue and none have interpreted Florida’s Wrongful Death
Act or Florida’s common law specifically. See Wade R. Habeeb, Right
of spouse to maintain action for wrongful death as affected by fact that injury
resulting in death occurred before marriage, 69 A.L.R.3d 1046 (2011 update)
(noting that there is “little authority” for the proposition that a wrongful
death statute abrogates the marriage before injury rule).
2Additionally,
we note that other jurisdictions have prohibited a loss of consortium claim
from proceeding in so-called “latent injury” cases. See, e.g., Anderson
v. Eli Lilly & Co., 588 N.E.2d 66, 67-68 (N.Y. 1991); Doe v.
Cherwitz, 518 N.W.2d 362, 362 (Iowa 1994); Gross v. Sauer, No. 37 83
58, 1992 WL 205277, *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 1992).
we note that other jurisdictions have prohibited a loss of consortium claim
from proceeding in so-called “latent injury” cases. See, e.g., Anderson
v. Eli Lilly & Co., 588 N.E.2d 66, 67-68 (N.Y. 1991); Doe v.
Cherwitz, 518 N.W.2d 362, 362 (Iowa 1994); Gross v. Sauer, No. 37 83
58, 1992 WL 205277, *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 1992).
3We
do not express any comment regarding other damages recoverable under the
Wrongful Death Act such as recovery for medical and funeral expenses and other
damages recoverable by an estate’s personal representative. See §
768.21(3)-(6), Fla. Stat.
do not express any comment regarding other damages recoverable under the
Wrongful Death Act such as recovery for medical and funeral expenses and other
damages recoverable by an estate’s personal representative. See §
768.21(3)-(6), Fla. Stat.
__________________
(TAYLOR,
J., dissenting.) I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the trial court’s
order barring the plaintiff from recovering wrongful death damages after almost
40 years of marriage to the decedent. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s
wrongful death claim because she was not married to the decedent when he was
exposed to asbestos-containing products in the early 1970’s. It bears
emphasizing, however, that the decedent was not diagnosed with any
asbestos-related illness until 2014. In dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the
trial court incorrectly applied a common law rule governing loss of consortium
claims to a cause of action that arose under the Wrongful Death Act. This
common law rule, which limits loss of consortium recovery to spouses who are
married at the time of the injury, cannot coexist with the Wrongful Death Act
as written.
J., dissenting.) I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the trial court’s
order barring the plaintiff from recovering wrongful death damages after almost
40 years of marriage to the decedent. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s
wrongful death claim because she was not married to the decedent when he was
exposed to asbestos-containing products in the early 1970’s. It bears
emphasizing, however, that the decedent was not diagnosed with any
asbestos-related illness until 2014. In dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, the
trial court incorrectly applied a common law rule governing loss of consortium
claims to a cause of action that arose under the Wrongful Death Act. This
common law rule, which limits loss of consortium recovery to spouses who are
married at the time of the injury, cannot coexist with the Wrongful Death Act
as written.
Under
the Wrongful Death Act, marriage at the time of injury is not a necessary
element of the cause of action. A wrongful death cause of action did not exist
at common law. Nissan Motor Co. v. Phlieger, 508 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla.
1987). It is purely statutory and supersedes the common law. As the Florida
Supreme Court has noted on numerous occasions, the Legislature intended to
create an entirely new and independent cause of action for survivors of injured
persons who subsequently died from their injuries. Id. Both the text of
the Wrongful Death Act and Florida Supreme Court precedent demonstrate the
Legislature’s clear intent to grant a decedent’s survivors a brand new cause of
action not previously recognized at common law.
the Wrongful Death Act, marriage at the time of injury is not a necessary
element of the cause of action. A wrongful death cause of action did not exist
at common law. Nissan Motor Co. v. Phlieger, 508 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla.
1987). It is purely statutory and supersedes the common law. As the Florida
Supreme Court has noted on numerous occasions, the Legislature intended to
create an entirely new and independent cause of action for survivors of injured
persons who subsequently died from their injuries. Id. Both the text of
the Wrongful Death Act and Florida Supreme Court precedent demonstrate the
Legislature’s clear intent to grant a decedent’s survivors a brand new cause of
action not previously recognized at common law.
As
the majority correctly points out, “[u]nless a statute unequivocally states
that it changes the common law, or is so repugnant to the common law that the
two cannot coexist, the statute will not be held to have changed the common law.”
Thornber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914, 918 (Fla. 1990).
Here, however, the Wrongful Death Act meets both tests of Thornber.
the majority correctly points out, “[u]nless a statute unequivocally states
that it changes the common law, or is so repugnant to the common law that the
two cannot coexist, the statute will not be held to have changed the common law.”
Thornber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914, 918 (Fla. 1990).
Here, however, the Wrongful Death Act meets both tests of Thornber.
First,
the Legislature unequivocally stated that the Wrongful Death Act is a
“remedial” statute, and is designed “to shift the losses resulting when
wrongful death occurs from the survivors of the decedent to the wrongdoer.” §
768.17, Fla. Stat. (2015). This constitutes an unequivocal statement that the
Wrongful Death Act is in derogation of the common law. By definition, a
remedial statute is “designed to correct an existing law” or to give a party a
“remedy for a wrong, where he had none, or a different one, before.” Adams
v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391, 394 (Fla. 1981) (citation omitted).
the Legislature unequivocally stated that the Wrongful Death Act is a
“remedial” statute, and is designed “to shift the losses resulting when
wrongful death occurs from the survivors of the decedent to the wrongdoer.” §
768.17, Fla. Stat. (2015). This constitutes an unequivocal statement that the
Wrongful Death Act is in derogation of the common law. By definition, a
remedial statute is “designed to correct an existing law” or to give a party a
“remedy for a wrong, where he had none, or a different one, before.” Adams
v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391, 394 (Fla. 1981) (citation omitted).
Second,
the Wrongful Death Act is so repugnant to the common law rule regarding
consortium claims that the two cannot coexist where the plaintiff is asserting
a claim for wrongful death. We have explained that the cause of action for
wrongful death is “created and limited” by the Wrongful Death Act. Hess v.
Hess, 758 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Applying the common law
“marriage at the time of injury” rule to the facts of this case would require
us to rewrite the Wrongful Death Act. The Wrongful Death Act sets forth the
exclusive list of individuals who are entitled to recover damages as
statutorily-designated “survivors.” It follows that the Wrongful Death Act is
repugnant to any common law rule that would effectively modify the definition
of the term “survivors” under the Act. Stated another way, applying the common
law requirements of a consortium claim to a wrongful death claim would alter
the category of “survivors” that may recover damages under the Wrongful Death
Act, thereby limiting the class of “survivors” in a way that was not authorized
by the Legislature. This result is wholly repugnant to the plain language of
the statute.
the Wrongful Death Act is so repugnant to the common law rule regarding
consortium claims that the two cannot coexist where the plaintiff is asserting
a claim for wrongful death. We have explained that the cause of action for
wrongful death is “created and limited” by the Wrongful Death Act. Hess v.
Hess, 758 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Applying the common law
“marriage at the time of injury” rule to the facts of this case would require
us to rewrite the Wrongful Death Act. The Wrongful Death Act sets forth the
exclusive list of individuals who are entitled to recover damages as
statutorily-designated “survivors.” It follows that the Wrongful Death Act is
repugnant to any common law rule that would effectively modify the definition
of the term “survivors” under the Act. Stated another way, applying the common
law requirements of a consortium claim to a wrongful death claim would alter
the category of “survivors” that may recover damages under the Wrongful Death
Act, thereby limiting the class of “survivors” in a way that was not authorized
by the Legislature. This result is wholly repugnant to the plain language of
the statute.
As
noted above, the “marriage at the time of injury” element of a common law loss
of consortium claim simply does not apply to a wrongful death action. Under the
Wrongful Death Act, the decedent’s personal representatives “shall recover for
the benefit of the decedent’s survivors and estate all damages, as specified in
this act, caused by the injury resulting in death.” § 768.20, Fla. Stat. (2015).
“Survivors” are defined as:
noted above, the “marriage at the time of injury” element of a common law loss
of consortium claim simply does not apply to a wrongful death action. Under the
Wrongful Death Act, the decedent’s personal representatives “shall recover for
the benefit of the decedent’s survivors and estate all damages, as specified in
this act, caused by the injury resulting in death.” § 768.20, Fla. Stat. (2015).
“Survivors” are defined as:
the decedent’s spouse,
children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for
support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters. It
includes the child born out of wedlock of a mother, but not the child born out
of wedlock of the father unless the father has recognized a responsibility for
the child’s support.
children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for
support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters. It
includes the child born out of wedlock of a mother, but not the child born out
of wedlock of the father unless the father has recognized a responsibility for
the child’s support.
§
768.18(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
768.18(1), Fla. Stat. (2015).
As
for damages, a wrongful death claim is “brought on behalf of the survivors, not
to recover for injuries to the deceased, but to recover for statutorily
identified losses the survivors have suffered directly as a result of the
death.” City of Pompano Beach v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., 709 So. 2d 603, 605
(Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The statute provides that the surviving spouse may recover
“for loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection and for mental pain
and suffering” and “the value of lost support and services” from the date of
the decedent’s injury to her or his death. § 768.21(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).
for damages, a wrongful death claim is “brought on behalf of the survivors, not
to recover for injuries to the deceased, but to recover for statutorily
identified losses the survivors have suffered directly as a result of the
death.” City of Pompano Beach v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., 709 So. 2d 603, 605
(Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The statute provides that the surviving spouse may recover
“for loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection and for mental pain
and suffering” and “the value of lost support and services” from the date of
the decedent’s injury to her or his death. § 768.21(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).
In
interpreting a statute, we must first consider “[t]he plain meaning of the
statutory language.” St Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamm, 414 So.
2d 1071, 1073 (Fla. 1982). No language in the Wrongful Death Act states or even
suggests that a surviving spouse must be married to the decedent at the time of
injury to recover the delineated damages. The statute gives a right of action
not had under common law and it must be limited strictly to the meaning of the
language employed and not extended beyond its plain and explicit terms.
interpreting a statute, we must first consider “[t]he plain meaning of the
statutory language.” St Petersburg Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamm, 414 So.
2d 1071, 1073 (Fla. 1982). No language in the Wrongful Death Act states or even
suggests that a surviving spouse must be married to the decedent at the time of
injury to recover the delineated damages. The statute gives a right of action
not had under common law and it must be limited strictly to the meaning of the
language employed and not extended beyond its plain and explicit terms.
The
statute defines “survivors” as including “the decedent’s spouse” without any
other limitation. See § 768.18, Fla. Stat. (2015). Further, section
768.21, which governs recoverable damages, does not state that a spouse must be
married to the decedent at the time of the decedent’s injury. Under the clear
terms of the Wrongful Death Act, a cause of action for the recovery of wrongful
death damages vests in favor of the surviving spouse on the date of death of
the decedent. Thus, the only relevant time for the determination of an
individual’s status as a survivor is the time of the decedent’s death. See,
e.g., Powell v. Gessner, 231 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
(“[T]he status of a child in respect to its right to sue for the wrongful death
of a parent is determined at the time of the death of the parent.”).
statute defines “survivors” as including “the decedent’s spouse” without any
other limitation. See § 768.18, Fla. Stat. (2015). Further, section
768.21, which governs recoverable damages, does not state that a spouse must be
married to the decedent at the time of the decedent’s injury. Under the clear
terms of the Wrongful Death Act, a cause of action for the recovery of wrongful
death damages vests in favor of the surviving spouse on the date of death of
the decedent. Thus, the only relevant time for the determination of an
individual’s status as a survivor is the time of the decedent’s death. See,
e.g., Powell v. Gessner, 231 So. 2d 50, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
(“[T]he status of a child in respect to its right to sue for the wrongful death
of a parent is determined at the time of the death of the parent.”).
The
majority contends that the language of section 768.21(2) implies that the
Legislature assumed the surviving spouse would be married to the decedent on
the date of injury. Section 768.21(2) states that “[t]he surviving spouse may
also recover for loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection and for
mental pain and suffering from the date of injury.” However, the clause “from
the date of injury” does not provide a limitation as to who may recover,
but rather indicates what a surviving spouse may recover. Accordingly,
the statute does not limit recovery to those surviving spouses who are married
to the decedent at the time of injury.
majority contends that the language of section 768.21(2) implies that the
Legislature assumed the surviving spouse would be married to the decedent on
the date of injury. Section 768.21(2) states that “[t]he surviving spouse may
also recover for loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection and for
mental pain and suffering from the date of injury.” However, the clause “from
the date of injury” does not provide a limitation as to who may recover,
but rather indicates what a surviving spouse may recover. Accordingly,
the statute does not limit recovery to those surviving spouses who are married
to the decedent at the time of injury.
While
the Legislature may not have contemplated the unique facts of this particular
case, the term “survivors” is unambiguous. As our supreme court has explained,
“[e]ven where a court is convinced that the legislature really meant and
intended something not expressed in the phraseology of the act, it will not
deem itself authorized to depart from the plain meaning of the language which
is free from ambiguity.” Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control
Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla. 1992) (quoting Van Pelt v. Hilliard,
78 So. 693, 694 (Fla. 1918)).
the Legislature may not have contemplated the unique facts of this particular
case, the term “survivors” is unambiguous. As our supreme court has explained,
“[e]ven where a court is convinced that the legislature really meant and
intended something not expressed in the phraseology of the act, it will not
deem itself authorized to depart from the plain meaning of the language which
is free from ambiguity.” Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control
Dist., 604 So. 2d 452, 454 (Fla. 1992) (quoting Van Pelt v. Hilliard,
78 So. 693, 694 (Fla. 1918)).
Although
the common rule governing consortium claims and the Wrongful Death Act
providing “consortium-like” damages have been around for decades, the issue of
whether the common law “marriage at the time of injury” rule should be
incorporated into the Wrongful Death Act appears to be a matter of first
impression in Florida. This is not, however, an issue of first impression in
the United States. Courts addressing this issue in other states have rejected
outright the argument that the common law “marriage before injury” rule
deprives surviving spouses of their right to maintain statutory actions for
wrongful death. These jurisdictions support the spouse’s right to recover for
consortium-like damages where such damages are provided by statute, regardless
of whether the spouse and decedent were married at the time of the initial
injury that resulted in death. Moreover, to my knowledge, no other appellate
court in the history of American jurisprudence has come to the conclusion
reached by the majority.
the common rule governing consortium claims and the Wrongful Death Act
providing “consortium-like” damages have been around for decades, the issue of
whether the common law “marriage at the time of injury” rule should be
incorporated into the Wrongful Death Act appears to be a matter of first
impression in Florida. This is not, however, an issue of first impression in
the United States. Courts addressing this issue in other states have rejected
outright the argument that the common law “marriage before injury” rule
deprives surviving spouses of their right to maintain statutory actions for
wrongful death. These jurisdictions support the spouse’s right to recover for
consortium-like damages where such damages are provided by statute, regardless
of whether the spouse and decedent were married at the time of the initial
injury that resulted in death. Moreover, to my knowledge, no other appellate
court in the history of American jurisprudence has come to the conclusion
reached by the majority.
In Lovett
v. Garvin, 208 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. 1974), for example, the Georgia Supreme
Court held that the husband’s right of action for tortious homicide of his wife
under the wrongful death statute accrued at the time of the wife’s death from
the injuries inflicted by the defendant — thus, because the husband and wife
were married at the time of the wife’s death, the husband was entitled to bring
a wrongful death action even though the husband and wife were not married at
the time the injuries were inflicted.
v. Garvin, 208 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. 1974), for example, the Georgia Supreme
Court held that the husband’s right of action for tortious homicide of his wife
under the wrongful death statute accrued at the time of the wife’s death from
the injuries inflicted by the defendant — thus, because the husband and wife
were married at the time of the wife’s death, the husband was entitled to bring
a wrongful death action even though the husband and wife were not married at
the time the injuries were inflicted.
The
Lovett court wrote that “[s]ince the [wrongful death statute] gives a
right of action not had under common law, it must be limited strictly to the
meaning of the language employed and not extended beyond its plain and explicit
terms.” Id. at 840. The court went on to explain that:
Lovett court wrote that “[s]ince the [wrongful death statute] gives a
right of action not had under common law, it must be limited strictly to the
meaning of the language employed and not extended beyond its plain and explicit
terms.” Id. at 840. The court went on to explain that:
Nothing in the language of
this statute states or implies that the husband must be married to the wife at
the time the injuries from which she subsequently dies are inflicted.
Therefore, we agree that the right of action accrues at the time of the death
of the wife. Since at the time of the decedent’s death here she was lawfully
married to the plaintiff, he was entitled to bring an action for damages
against the defendant for her wrongful death under the law of this state.
this statute states or implies that the husband must be married to the wife at
the time the injuries from which she subsequently dies are inflicted.
Therefore, we agree that the right of action accrues at the time of the death
of the wife. Since at the time of the decedent’s death here she was lawfully
married to the plaintiff, he was entitled to bring an action for damages
against the defendant for her wrongful death under the law of this state.
Id.
Similarly,
in DeVine v. Blanchard Valley Medical Associates, Inc., 725 N.E.2d 366
(Ct. Comm. Pls. Ohio 1999), a case where the husband brought a wrongful death
action against health care providers for their negligent failure to properly
diagnose and treat his wife’s cancer, the Ohio court held that the husband was
not precluded from seeking damages for loss of consortium in his wrongful death
action although the husband and wife were not married when the wife was
diagnosed with cancer.
in DeVine v. Blanchard Valley Medical Associates, Inc., 725 N.E.2d 366
(Ct. Comm. Pls. Ohio 1999), a case where the husband brought a wrongful death
action against health care providers for their negligent failure to properly
diagnose and treat his wife’s cancer, the Ohio court held that the husband was
not precluded from seeking damages for loss of consortium in his wrongful death
action although the husband and wife were not married when the wife was
diagnosed with cancer.
After
acknowledging the common law rule that a spouse must be married at the time of
injury to recover for loss of consortium, the DeVine court noted that
the Ohio wrongful death statute was an independent cause of action and that
nothing in the statute limited recovery. The court concluded that a claim for
wrongful death differs significantly from a claim for loss of consortium,
stating as follows:
acknowledging the common law rule that a spouse must be married at the time of
injury to recover for loss of consortium, the DeVine court noted that
the Ohio wrongful death statute was an independent cause of action and that
nothing in the statute limited recovery. The court concluded that a claim for
wrongful death differs significantly from a claim for loss of consortium,
stating as follows:
A claim for loss of
consortium has been recognized at common law for many years. Conversely, an
action for wrongful death is statutory in nature and operates as an exception
to the common law. A cause of action brought under R.C. Chapter 2125 provides a
single and distinct cause of action, involving multiple elements of damages.
This right of action is independent from any right or cause that may be brought
by the injured person.
consortium has been recognized at common law for many years. Conversely, an
action for wrongful death is statutory in nature and operates as an exception
to the common law. A cause of action brought under R.C. Chapter 2125 provides a
single and distinct cause of action, involving multiple elements of damages.
This right of action is independent from any right or cause that may be brought
by the injured person.
Id.
at
369 (internal citations omitted).
at
369 (internal citations omitted).
Likewise,
in Du Bois v. Community Hospital of Schoharie County, Inc., 540 N.Y.S.2d
917 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989), a New York appellate court affirmed the trial court’s
denial of the hospital’s motion to dismiss a widow’s wrongful death action.
There, the appellate court drew a distinction between a common law loss of
consortium claim and wrongful death damages sought by a spouse. The court
stated that although a claim for loss of consortium is not permitted unless the
surviving spouse was married to the injured person at the time of the
actionable conduct, “that is not the case with a wrongful death cause of
action.” Id. at 918. The court held that the widow’s rights as a
beneficiary of the decedent are not affected by when the marriage occurred as
long as the parties were married at the time of the decedent’s death. Id.
in Du Bois v. Community Hospital of Schoharie County, Inc., 540 N.Y.S.2d
917 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989), a New York appellate court affirmed the trial court’s
denial of the hospital’s motion to dismiss a widow’s wrongful death action.
There, the appellate court drew a distinction between a common law loss of
consortium claim and wrongful death damages sought by a spouse. The court
stated that although a claim for loss of consortium is not permitted unless the
surviving spouse was married to the injured person at the time of the
actionable conduct, “that is not the case with a wrongful death cause of
action.” Id. at 918. The court held that the widow’s rights as a
beneficiary of the decedent are not affected by when the marriage occurred as
long as the parties were married at the time of the decedent’s death. Id.
Finally,
in Corley v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals, 749 So. 2d
926, 942 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1999), the court explained that for purposes of a
wrongful death action, “it is irrelevant what the relationship between the
claimants and the decedent was at an earlier time, such as at the time of the
act or omission which caused or set in motion the death[.]”
in Corley v. State, Department of Health & Hospitals, 749 So. 2d
926, 942 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1999), the court explained that for purposes of a
wrongful death action, “it is irrelevant what the relationship between the
claimants and the decedent was at an earlier time, such as at the time of the
act or omission which caused or set in motion the death[.]”
These
decisions illustrate that courts across the country have routinely rejected the
appellees’ argument. In fact, as far as I am aware, the majority’s decision is
the first time any court has held in a reported opinion that the common law
requirements of a consortium claim barred a spouse from asserting a statutory
claim for wrongful death where the injury occurred before the marriage. See Wade
R. Habeeb, Right of spouse to maintain action for wrongful death as affected
by fact that injury resulting in death occurred before marriage, 69
A.L.R.3d 1046 (2011 update) (collecting cases that uniformly reject the
appellees’ argument).
decisions illustrate that courts across the country have routinely rejected the
appellees’ argument. In fact, as far as I am aware, the majority’s decision is
the first time any court has held in a reported opinion that the common law
requirements of a consortium claim barred a spouse from asserting a statutory
claim for wrongful death where the injury occurred before the marriage. See Wade
R. Habeeb, Right of spouse to maintain action for wrongful death as affected
by fact that injury resulting in death occurred before marriage, 69
A.L.R.3d 1046 (2011 update) (collecting cases that uniformly reject the
appellees’ argument).
Under
Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, the surviving spouse is entitled to maintain a
claim for all those statutorily identified losses that he or she has suffered
directly as a result of the death of the decedent. This includes the bundle of
services and benefits specified in the act which we commonly call “consortium.”
The Legislature, by including these damages without basing their recoverability
on the surviving spouse’s relationship to the decedent at the time of injury,
clearly intended that such damages be recoverable in a wrongful death action.
Here, the plaintiff’s wrongful death claim is not a common law claim for loss
of consortium deriving from her late husband’s claim for personal injury, but
is a claim based on a wholly independent and distinct cause of action
authorized by the Legislature. According to the statute, her rights vested upon
the death of her husband. The date of their marriage is immaterial.
Florida’s Wrongful Death Act, the surviving spouse is entitled to maintain a
claim for all those statutorily identified losses that he or she has suffered
directly as a result of the death of the decedent. This includes the bundle of
services and benefits specified in the act which we commonly call “consortium.”
The Legislature, by including these damages without basing their recoverability
on the surviving spouse’s relationship to the decedent at the time of injury,
clearly intended that such damages be recoverable in a wrongful death action.
Here, the plaintiff’s wrongful death claim is not a common law claim for loss
of consortium deriving from her late husband’s claim for personal injury, but
is a claim based on a wholly independent and distinct cause of action
authorized by the Legislature. According to the statute, her rights vested upon
the death of her husband. The date of their marriage is immaterial.
In
sum, I would reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s wrongful
death consortium claim. The trial court incorrectly applied the common law rule
concerning consortium claims in personal injury cases to the plaintiff’s
statutory claim for wrongful death. In doing so, the court barred the plaintiff
from recovering a significant portion of the damages provided by the
Legislature for surviving spouses of those who died from injuries caused by the
negligence of others.
sum, I would reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s wrongful
death consortium claim. The trial court incorrectly applied the common law rule
concerning consortium claims in personal injury cases to the plaintiff’s
statutory claim for wrongful death. In doing so, the court barred the plaintiff
from recovering a significant portion of the damages provided by the
Legislature for surviving spouses of those who died from injuries caused by the
negligence of others.
* *
*
*