Kluger v. White
281 So. 2d 1 (1973)
Rule of Law:
The legislature may not abolish a common law or statutory right of action for redress of an injury unless it provides a reasonable alternative remedy or demonstrates an overpowering public necessity for the abolition, with no other alternative method to meet that necessity.
Facts:
- Clara H. Kluger's automobile was involved in a collision with a vehicle owned by Bernadette White.
- The driver of White's vehicle was allegedly negligent and was charged with failure to yield the right of way.
- Kluger's car sustained $774.95 in damages, but its fair market value was only $250, making her total recoverable loss $250.
- Kluger was insured by Manchester Insurance and Indemnity Company, but she had elected not to purchase property damage coverage for her own vehicle.
- Florida's no-fault statute, § 627.738, barred tort lawsuits for property damage if the owner chose not to buy insurance and the damage was less than $550.
- Because her loss was under the $550 statutory threshold and she had no insurance coverage, the statute left Kluger with no legal recourse to recover her damages from any party.
Procedural Posture:
- Clara H. Kluger filed a property damage lawsuit against Bernadette White and Manchester Insurance and Indemnity Company in the Dade County Circuit Court, a trial court.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action based on Fla. Stat. § 627.738.
- The trial court granted the dismissal, finding the statute constitutional.
- Kluger, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal directly to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 Fla. Stat. § 627.738, which abolishes the tort right of action for motor vehicle property damage under $550 for owners who have not purchased property damage insurance, violate the Florida Constitution's guarantee of access to courts for redress of any injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Adkins, J.
Yes, the statute violates the Florida Constitution's access to courts provision. The legislature cannot abolish a pre-existing right of action without providing a reasonable alternative to protect the people's right to redress for injuries, unless it can demonstrate an overpowering public necessity for the abolition and show that no alternative method exists. Here, the statute completely abolishes Kluger's right to sue the tortfeasor for her property damage but provides no alternative remedy, such as required insurance coverage. The court distinguished this from permissible legislative actions like the Workmen's Compensation Act, which provided an adequate alternative remedy, or the abolition of 'heart balm' torts, which was justified by the public necessity of preventing blackmail and extortion.
Dissenting - Boyd, J.
No, the statute is a constitutional exercise of legislative power. The right to litigate is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restraints, as seen in statutes of limitation and family immunity doctrines. Kluger was offered property damage insurance and voluntarily rejected it, effectively choosing to be her own insurer for losses up to the statutory threshold. The no-fault law is a reasonable legislative solution to the societal problems caused by excessive tort litigation, similar to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The legislature can prospectively modify common law causes of action to address public policy concerns.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the "Kluger test," a significant check on the Florida legislature's power to enact tort reform. By requiring either a reasonable alternative remedy or a showing of overpowering public necessity, the ruling protects the constitutional right of access to courts from legislative abrogation. The case has had a profound impact on the drafting and judicial review of subsequent legislation that seeks to limit or eliminate causes of action in Florida, particularly in the areas of insurance and medical malpractice.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Kluger v. White (1973)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"