Sturiano v. Brooks
1988 WL 26252, 523 So. 2d 1126 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Interspousal tort immunity is waived to the extent of applicable liability insurance when the policy reasons for the doctrine, such as preserving marital harmony and preventing collusion, are absent due to the death of the tortfeasor spouse. For automobile insurance contracts, Florida applies the doctrine of lex loci contractus, meaning the law of the state where the contract was executed governs its interpretation.
Facts:
- Josephine Sturiano and her husband, Vito Sturiano, were lifelong residents of New York who wintered annually in Florida.
- The couple purchased an automobile insurance policy in New York six years prior to the accident.
- While in Florida, Vito Sturiano was driving a car with Josephine Sturiano as a passenger when he crashed into a tree.
- Vito Sturiano was killed in the collision, and Josephine Sturiano was injured.
- Other than his wife Josephine, Vito Sturiano was survived by no other heirs or lineal descendents.
Procedural Posture:
- Josephine Sturiano sued the estate of her deceased husband, Vito Sturiano, in a Florida trial court for negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Josephine Sturiano.
- The trial court reduced the jury's award to the amount of the applicable insurance policy coverage.
- Martin Brooks, the guardian ad litem for the estate, appealed the judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, with Brooks as the appellant and Sturiano as the appellee.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that interspousal immunity did not bar the suit but reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that under the doctrine of lex loci contractus, New York law applied and precluded recovery under the insurance policy.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal then certified two questions of great public importance 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:
Under Florida law, 1) does the doctrine of interspousal immunity bar a negligence claim by an injured spouse against their deceased spouse's estate when the claimant is the sole heir, and 2) does the rule of lex loci contractus govern the interpretation of an automobile insurance policy, precluding the application of the 'significant relationship' test?
Opinions:
Majority - Kogan, J.
No as to the first part of the issue; Yes as to the second. The doctrine of interspousal immunity does not bar the claim, but the doctrine of lex loci contractus governs the insurance contract. The traditional policy reasons for interspousal immunity—preserving marital harmony and preventing fraud or collusion—do not exist here. Because Vito Sturiano is deceased, there is no marital harmony to disrupt, and because Josephine Sturiano is the sole interested party in the estate, there is no one with whom she could collude. Therefore, the immunity doctrine is waived to the extent of applicable insurance coverage. However, regarding the insurance contract itself, the Court upholds the doctrine of lex loci contractus for automobile insurance. This rule provides necessary stability and predictability, as parties enter into contracts with the expectation that the laws of that jurisdiction will control. To allow a party to change the governing law simply by moving would undermine the ability to form stable, binding contracts.
Concurring - Grimes, J.
Agrees with the result but not the reasoning on the conflict of laws issue. While the majority upholds the rigid lex loci contractus rule, the more modern and flexible 'significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws is preferable. However, the outcome would be the same under either rule in this specific case. Applying the Restatement, New York law would still govern because the parties understood New York to be the principal location of the insured risk when the policy was issued, and the insurer was not aware the car was kept in Florida for substantial periods.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Ehrlich, J.
Agrees with the majority's decision to uphold lex loci contractus but disagrees with the reasoning on interspousal immunity. The waiver of immunity should not be conditioned on the existence of liability insurance. If the policy reasons for the doctrine (preserving harmony, preventing fraud) do not exist, as is the case here, then the immunity doctrine simply should not apply at all. Tying the waiver of immunity to insurance coverage is an unnecessary and illogical limitation.
Analysis:
This case creates a significant, policy-based exception to the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity, allowing a suit to proceed when the death of one spouse eliminates the traditional justifications for the rule. However, by simultaneously reaffirming the rigid lex loci contractus doctrine for automobile insurance contracts, the court created a split in its choice-of-law jurisprudence, distinguishing it from tort law where Florida had already adopted the more modern 'significant relationship' test. This decision illustrates a court selectively modernizing one area of common law while deliberately maintaining a traditional, inflexible approach in another to promote predictability in contractual relationships.
Unlock the full brief for Sturiano v. Brooks