Metropolitan Dade County v. Reyes
21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 552, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 2139, 688 So. 2d 311 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse's derivative claim for loss of consortium against a state agency or subdivision requires its own separate pre-suit notice under Florida's sovereign immunity statute, § 768.28(6)(a). A notice provided by the directly injured spouse for their own claim is insufficient to cover the other spouse's derivative claim.
Facts:
- Orlando Reyes was a delivery man for a purveyor.
- On December 5, 1989, Orlando Reyes slipped and fell on a greasy floor at a jail facility owned by Metropolitan Dade County.
- By letter dated August 6, 1990, Orlando Reyes's attorney sent a written notice to Metropolitan Dade County and the state Department of Insurance, stating his intention to pursue a claim for his injuries.
- The notice letter mentioned only Orlando Reyes's claim for his own injuries and did not state that he was married or that his wife, Beatriz Reyes, would also be bringing a claim for loss of consortium.
Procedural Posture:
- Orlando Reyes and his wife, Beatriz Reyes, filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan Dade County in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court (trial court).
- Orlando Reyes sued for negligence, and Beatriz Reyes joined the suit with a claim for loss of consortium.
- The trial court entered a directed verdict in favor of Metropolitan Dade County on Beatriz Reyes's claim, ruling that she had failed to provide the statutory pre-suit notice required by § 768.28(6)(a).
- Beatriz Reyes appealed the directed verdict to the Third District Court of Appeal.
- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a separate notice was not required for her derivative claim.
- Metropolitan Dade County, the appellee below, petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review, citing a direct conflict with a decision from another appellate 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 spouse's derivative claim for loss of consortium against a government entity require a separate written notice of claim under Florida Statutes § 768.28(6)(a), or is the notice provided by the directly injured spouse sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Overton, Justice
Yes, a spouse's derivative claim for loss of consortium requires a separate written notice. The plain language of § 768.28(6)(a) requires each 'claimant' to present their claim in writing. Because waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed, this requirement cannot be bypassed. The court reasoned that a loss of consortium claim is a separate and distinct cause of action, even though it is derivative, representing a direct injury to the spouse who lost the consortium. The purpose of the notice statute is to allow the government an opportunity to investigate each claim, and a notice from one spouse does not provide an opportunity to investigate the other spouse's separate damages, especially since an award for loss of consortium is not automatic and requires its own proof of the impact on the marital relationship.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for bringing claims against government entities in Florida under the state's waiver of sovereign immunity. By holding that each claimant, including those with derivative claims, must file a separate notice, the court reinforced the principle of strict construction for such statutes. This creates a significant procedural hurdle for plaintiffs, as a failure by one spouse to file a notice will bar their otherwise valid claim, even if the primary claim was properly noticed. The ruling establishes that derivative claims are treated as distinct causes of action for statutory notice purposes, protecting government entities from surprise claims but increasing the administrative diligence required of plaintiffs' attorneys.
