From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 11, 1992
605 So. 2d 104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Summary

concluding that after the adoption of FLA. STAT. § 768.20 survivors may not assert independent claims arising out of a wrongful death and that survivors' claims must be brought through "the medium of a personal representative"

Summary of this case from North v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

Opinion

No. 92-885.

August 11, 1992.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Steven D. Robinson, J.

Heinrich, Gordon, Batchelder, Hargrove, Weihe Gent, and Lillian W. Conrad, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Nicklaus, Valle, Craig Wicks, Miami, Haddad, Josephs, Jack Gaebe, Coral Gables, Kenney, Burd, Knutson Markowitz, and Joseph W. Downs, III, Miami, Knecht Knecht, Spencer Emison, Coral Gables, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.


ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL


The personal representatives appeal an order entered by the trial court striking the father's claim as an individual survivor. The motion was prompted by the trial court's determination that since the decedent is survived by a wife, the decedent's father has no individual damage claims as a survivor. The appellees moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis that it does not constitute a reviewable final order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A).

At the outset, we recognize that under substantive law the decedent's survivors are the real parties in interest. Nonetheless, the Legislature has mandated that a decedent's personal representative is the party "who shall recover for the benefit of the decedent's survivors and estate all damages. . . ." § 768.20, Fla. Stat. (1991). The personal representatives correctly contend that prior to the adoption of section 768.20, Florida Statutes (1991), each survivor would have had a totally independent claim for damages resulting from the decedent's wrongful death and that such a claim, if dismissed, would have supported a plenary appeal. Thus, argue the personal representatives, since the trial court has determined that the decedent's father is not entitled to any damages due to the wrongful death of his son, the father should not be precluded from bringing the appeal at this time merely because the Legislature has consolidated the estate and survivor actions for damages through the medium of a personal representative.

The appellees contend that the dismissal of a survivor's claim is not any different from the dismissal of any other claim brought by a party and that unless it constitutes a separate and severable controversy, it will not support a plenary appeal. We agree with the appellees. In Puig v. Saga Corp. 543 So.2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), we held that the surviving spouse of a decedent was not properly a party to a wrongful death action and consequently no costs could be taxed against her personally. We would defeat the legislative purpose in the adoption of section 768.20, by permitting this appeal to be determined in the present posture of this case. Moreover, we would be in violation of the policy established in Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass'n, 303 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1974). There, the supreme court announced a policy which has been followed consistently:

We adhere to the rule that piecemeal appeals should not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated and in substance involve the same transaction. However, when it is obvious that a separate and distinct cause of action is pleaded which is not interdependent with other pleaded claims, it should be appealable if dismissed with finality at trial level and not delayed of appeal because of the pendency of other claims between the parties.
Id. at 5.

In the present case, it is clear that the decedent's father's claim as survivor is dependent upon and interrelated with the other survivors' actions pending in the trial court insofar as it relates to liability. The father's survival action, although dismissed, is separate only as it relates to his own particular damages. Consequently, the order dismissing the father's claim as a survivor remains interlocutory in character and will be reviewable only upon entry of final judgment in the presently pending wrongful death action. Mendez.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted without prejudice.


Summaries of

Morgan v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Aug 11, 1992
605 So. 2d 104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

concluding that after the adoption of FLA. STAT. § 768.20 survivors may not assert independent claims arising out of a wrongful death and that survivors' claims must be brought through "the medium of a personal representative"

Summary of this case from North v. Precision Airmotive Corp.

In Morgan, a personal representative appealed a trial court's order striking the estate's claim for the damages of the father as an individual survivor because the decedent was survived by a wife.

Summary of this case from Gomez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

observing that, in a wrongful death action brought by a personal representative, “the decedents' survivors are the real parties in interest”

Summary of this case from Estate of Eisen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

In Morgan v. American Bankers Life Assur. Co. of Florida, 605 So.2d 104, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the third district dismissed the appeal of an order striking the father's claim as an individual survivor in a wrongful death action even though he had no other remaining claim for damages. The court held that the order was interlocutory in character because, although the father's damages were separate, his claim was "dependent upon and interrelated with the other survivors' actions pending in the trial court insofar as it relates to liability."

Summary of this case from Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bk., Inc.
Case details for

Morgan v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance

Case Details

Full title:RANDY L. MORGAN AND ROBERT L. MORGAN, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Aug 11, 1992

Citations

605 So. 2d 104 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Gomez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Cf. R.R. v. New Life Community Church of CMA, Inc., 303 So.3d 916, 921-23 (Fla. 2020) (holding that the…

Cicco v. Luckett Tobaccos, Inc.

We have long adhered to the rule that piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated…