Clemente v. Horne
1998 WL 88383, 707 So. 2d 865 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Florida, the defendant's conduct must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Facts:
- Vivienne Clemente and Jose Louis Herrada leased a residence from Donald E. Horne and Dottie Lee Horne.
- The Hornes knew the leased property was below the flood elevation level required by FEMA.
- The property continuously suffered from standing water, including water in electrical fixtures and lights.
- The property was continuously infested with termites, a condition the Hornes also knew about.
- As a result of fire safety and health violations, the Monroe County Fire Marshall directed the Florida Keys Electric Cooperative Association to terminate all electrical service to the premises.
- Clemente and Herrada, along with their five-year-old son, were constructively evicted from the premises due to these uninhabitable conditions and subsequently lacked adequate alternative housing.
Procedural Posture:
- Vivienne Clemente and Jose Louis Herrada (appellants/tenants) filed a two-count fourth amended complaint against Donald E. Horne and Dottie Lee Horne (appellees/landlords) in the lower court.
- Count one sought statutory damages for breach of landlords' duties, and count two sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The appellees moved for dismissal with prejudice of count two.
- The lower court dismissed count two with prejudice, basing its decision on the economic loss doctrine.
- The appellants subsequently voluntarily dismissed count one.
- Clemente and Herrada appealed the lower court's dismissal of count two to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's knowing failure to maintain a leased residence in accordance with health and safety laws, leading to constructive eviction and a tenant's inability to find alternative housing, constitute sufficiently 'outrageous conduct' to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Florida?
Opinions:
Majority - Green, Judge
No, a landlord's knowing failure to maintain a leased residence in accordance with health and safety laws, leading to constructive eviction and a tenant's inability to find alternative housing, does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Florida. The court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that even if the appellants had sufficiently pled the other elements of the tort (intentional/reckless conduct, causation, and severe emotional distress), the alleged conduct failed to meet the high standard for the 'outrageous conduct' element. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d, the court defined outrageous conduct as that which is 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' The court emphasized that 'the standard for 'outrageous conduct' is particularly high in Florida,' and that merely tortious, criminal, or even malicious intent to inflict distress is insufficient. While the anxiety and stress associated with constructive eviction under these circumstances were understandable, the court found the landlord's knowing failure to maintain the property did not evoke the universal sense of 'Outrageous!' required to meet this exceptionally stringent standard.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the exceptionally high threshold for proving 'outrageous conduct' in Florida's tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, particularly when the conduct arises from a contractual relationship like landlord-tenant. It demonstrates that even significant and knowingly unlawful breaches of duty that cause distress may not meet the severe standard required, distinguishing between wrongful or tortious conduct and conduct that is 'utterly intolerable.' The ruling limits the applicability of IIED to truly extreme circumstances, preventing it from becoming a general remedy for distress caused by breaches of contract or other less egregious torts, and emphasizes the need for facts that would provoke a universal sense of 'Outrageous!' from an average community member.
