Dominguez v. Equitable Life Assurance
438 So. 2d 58 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when a defendant engages in outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional harm, even if the conduct is not connected to another identifiable tort.
Facts:
- In 1973, Equitable Life Assurance Society issued a disability income policy to Antonio Dominguez.
- Shortly after, Dominguez was in an automobile accident that resulted in severe, permanent injuries, including brain damage and having both eyes knocked out of their sockets, rendering him totally disabled.
- Equitable paid Dominguez disability benefits pursuant to the policy until August 1979, at which point it stopped the payments.
- On April 21, 1980, an agent of Equitable, Millie Dirube, went to Dominguez's home.
- Dirube falsely told Dominguez that his doctor said his eyes were fine, he was no longer disabled, his policy was no longer in force, and he had to sign a paper surrendering the policy.
- Dirube knew these representations were false and made them with the intent to deceive Dominguez into giving up his policy benefits.
- A relative of Dominguez overheard the conversation, intervened, and prevented him from signing the paper.
Procedural Posture:
- Antonio Dominguez filed a complaint against Equitable Life Assurance Society, Crawford and Company, and Millie Dirube in a Florida trial court.
- The complaint included a count seeking damages for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss this count for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the count with prejudice.
- Dominguez, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal 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 plaintiff state a valid cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress where an insurer, knowing of the plaintiff's total disability, attempts to fraudulently coerce the plaintiff into surrendering his disability policy by making false representations about his medical condition and eligibility for benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Pearson, J.
Yes. A plaintiff states a valid cause of action for outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress under these circumstances. Florida law recognizes the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which involves the deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering even if unconnected to another wrong. The alleged conduct is sufficiently outrageous because the insurer abused its position of power over the insured. The insurer knew that Dominguez was totally disabled and peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, yet it made false representations in an attempt to coerce him into surrendering his policy. This combination of an unjustified assertion of power by one party and the impotence of the other is conduct that a civilized community would regard as atrocious and utterly intolerable.
Analysis:
This decision formally recognizes the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) within Florida's Third District Court of Appeal, aligning it with other Florida districts and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46. By doing so, the court clarifies its own conflicting precedent and establishes a clear legal remedy for victims of extreme and outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional harm. The case is significant for its emphasis on the context of the conduct, particularly the abuse of a power relationship and knowledge of a plaintiff's unique vulnerability, which lowers the bar for what a jury might consider outrageous, especially in cases involving insurers, creditors, or employers dealing with vulnerable individuals.
Unlock the full brief for Dominguez v. Equitable Life Assurance