Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman
2007 WL 2428430, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13385, 968 So. 2d 592 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Workers' compensation immunity does not shield an insurance carrier from liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress when its actions during the claims process are outrageously extreme, particularly when the carrier exploits a claimant's known peculiar susceptibility or a power imbalance.
Facts:
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company served as the workers' compensation insurance carrier for Colleen Steadman's employer.
- Norma Peele was the Liberty Mutual employee responsible for handling Colleen Steadman's claim for benefits.
- Colleen Steadman suffered from a severe medical condition that required a double lung transplant.
- Steadman's physicians testified that she had a very limited life expectancy and was not expected to survive past the following year.
- A Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) issued an order directing Liberty Mutual to authorize and pay for Steadman's lung transplant surgery.
- Despite the JCC's order, Liberty Mutual and Norma Peele delayed authorizing the lung transplant for nine months.
- Steadman alleged that Liberty Mutual and Peele's actions were motivated by the belief that she would die in a short time, and that they intentionally denied and delayed treatment to hasten her demise and inflict emotional distress, knowing it would harm her health.
- Steadman experienced severe emotional distress and a deterioration of her physical condition as a direct result of the delay.
Procedural Posture:
- Colleen Steadman filed a complaint in trial court against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Norma Peele, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Liberty Mutual and Norma Peele filed motions to dismiss Steadman's complaint, which the trial court denied.
- Liberty Mutual and Norma Peele (appellants) appealed the trial court's order denying their motions to dismiss to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, concluding that Steadman had not alleged wrongdoing independent of the claims-handling process and citing Inservices, Inc. v. Aguilera, 837 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Aguilera I).
- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District Court of Appeal's decision without reaching the merits, noting that Aguilera I, which the Second District had cited, had been subsequently quashed by Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So.2d 84 (Fla. 2005) (Aguilera II).
- The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second District Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Aguilera II.
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 an insurance carrier's intentional and unjustified nine-month delay in authorizing a critically ill claimant's lung transplant, despite a court order and knowledge of the claimant's limited life expectancy and susceptibility to distress, constitute sufficiently outrageous conduct to overcome workers' compensation immunity and state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelly, Judge
Yes, an insurance carrier's intentional and unjustified nine-month delay in authorizing a critically ill claimant's lung transplant, despite a court order and knowledge of the claimant's limited life expectancy and susceptibility to distress, can constitute sufficiently outrageous conduct to overcome workers' compensation immunity and state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, this court re-evaluated whether Steadman's complaint stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reaffirmed the principle from Aguilera II that workers' compensation legislation immunizes carriers for negligent conduct, simple bad faith, and minor delays, but not for intentional tortious conduct during the claim process. The court clarified that the inquiry should focus on the elements of the intentional tort alleged, rather than solely on whether the wrongdoing was separate from the claims process. The court applied the four elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress recognized in Florida: (1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering; (2) outrageous conduct; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe. While a mere delay in payments, viewed in isolation, might not be outrageous, the court considered the specific allegations that Liberty Mutual and Peele knew of Steadman's peculiar susceptibility (her critical illness and limited life expectancy) as relevant under Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46 cmt. f. Additionally, the court noted that the unequal position of the parties, where Liberty Mutual held power to affect Steadman's interests, contributed to the heightened degree of outrageousness under Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46 cmt. e. Finally, the delay was found to be 'wholly unjustified' because the JCC had already ordered the transplant, distinguishing this case from those where an insurer validly asserted its legal rights.
Concurring - Canady, J.
Concurring.
Concurring - Wallace, J.
Concurring.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the bounds of workers' compensation immunity in Florida, demonstrating that it is not an absolute shield for insurance carriers against claims of intentional torts. By emphasizing that the focus should be on the nature of the alleged intentional tort rather than solely on its occurrence within the claims process, the court provides a critical avenue for claimants subjected to extreme misconduct. The decision highlights that knowledge of a claimant's particular vulnerability and the exploitation of a power imbalance can elevate conduct to the level of 'outrageousness' required for intentional infliction of emotional distress, even within the context of claims handling. This ruling discourages truly egregious behavior by carriers and ensures that the workers' compensation system cannot be used to insulate malicious actions from civil liability, thereby strengthening protections for vulnerable claimants.
