Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 20, 2014; Florida; State Appellate Court
Margaret Randall, the Appellant, appeals the trial court's dismissal of her late husband Barry Randall's personal injury action against Walt Disney World Co. and Walt Disney Imagineering Research Development, Inc., as well as her loss-of-consortium claim. The appeal focuses on whether a surviving spouse's loss-of-consortium claim can persist after the death of the injured spouse. Barry Randall sustained injuries from a roller coaster ride at the appellees’ theme park in 2006, and he and Appellant filed a personal injury and loss-of-consortium claim in 2008. Barry died in 2010, and the cause of death is disputed. Appellant filed a suggestion of death in 2011 but did not substitute herself as personal representative within the required timeframe, leading to the dismissal of both claims by the trial court.
Appellant's motion for rehearing was denied, and the court reviews this under an abuse of discretion standard, or de novo for legal issues. The court acknowledges prior rulings indicating that a loss-of-consortium claim survives the death of the injured spouse, while the personal injury claim does not. The third district had previously ruled that such a claim does not survive, creating a conflict. The Florida Supreme Court recently disapproved the Taylor ruling to the extent inconsistent with its decision in Capone, which clarified that a pending personal injury action does not require dismissal upon a party's death, but the survival of loss-of-consortium claims was not addressed. Consequently, the court reaffirms its earlier precedent in Taylor, maintaining that Appellant's loss-of-consortium claim should survive despite the dismissal of her husband's personal injury action.
The term "separate and distinct" does not imply that a derivative cause of action can exist without a primary cause; rather, it allows a spouse to maintain a consortium claim even if the injured spouse is not joined in the action or has settled their claim. The court disagrees with the third district's interpretation that certain case precedents do not support a derivative cause of action without a primary claim. In Gates v. Foley, the supreme court recognized the loss of companionship as a compensable injury in negligence cases. The first district’s decisions in Resmondo and Ryter affirm that a wife's loss-of-consortium claim remains actionable even if her husband settles his claim without admitting fault, and that this claim is her property right. Florida law acknowledges that loss of consortium is a distinct cause of action, despite being derivative of the injured spouse's claim.
The third district's assertion that the loss-of-consortium claim should not persist after the death of the injured spouse, based on the Wrongful Death Act, is criticized. The analysis implies that if the injured spouse dies from an unrelated injury, the surviving spouse would be unable to maintain a wrongful death action for loss of consortium, potentially infringing on the spouse's vested rights. This interpretation is deemed contrary to legislative intent. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of the personal injury action is affirmed, but the dismissal of the loss-of-consortium claim is reversed, and the claim is to be reinstated. The court maintains its existing conflict with the third district's ruling in ACandS, Inc. v. Redd. The decision is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
