Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against the Molinets on their claims for non-economic emotional-distress damages arising from the handling and storage of a decedent’s remains. The court held that the record did not support a finding of wanton, malicious, or outrageous conduct. It reversed and remanded as to the claim for economic damages based on alleged violations of the Florida Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services Act because the trial court had not determined whether the cited statutory provisions were violated or whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Molinets' claim for economic damages based on alleged violations of the Florida Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services Act required proof of malicious, willful, or wanton conduct.
- Whether the record established a genuine issue of material fact that Van Orsdel engaged in willful, wanton, malicious, or outrageous conduct sufficient to support non-economic damages for emotional distress arising from the handling of a dead body.
Holdings
- A claim seeking actual economic damages for violations of the Florida Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services Act is not defeated merely because the plaintiff cannot show malicious conduct. Because the trial court did not determine whether Van Orsdel violated the cited Funeral Act provisions or whether it was otherwise entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the issue had to be remanded for initial determination by the trial court.
- The record did not create a genuine issue of material fact that Van Orsdel engaged in willful, wanton, malicious, or outrageous conduct. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly entered against the Molinets' claims for non-economic emotional-distress damages.
Key quotations
“[A]ny person may bring a civil action against a person or company violating the provisions of this chapter . . . . Upon adverse adjudication, the defendant shall be liable for actual damages caused by such violation.” (9)
“Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” (11-12)
Factual background
William G. Molinet died after being admitted to Jackson Memorial Hospital, and his remains were transferred to Van Orsdel for overflow storage after the hospital's morgue ran out of space. Van Orsdel stored the remains in refrigeration pursuant to an agreement with the hospital, whose records indicated that there was no next of kin known to the hospital. Nearly two months later, the Molinets' selected funeral home received the remains and recommended cremation, but the Molinets presented no direct evidence, photographs, or expert testimony establishing the condition of the body, the extent of decomposition, or that any deterioration resulted from negligent storage or transportation.
Procedural history
The Molinets sued Van Orsdel, alleging that it improperly transported and stored William Molinet's remains and seeking economic and emotional-distress damages. The trial court granted Van Orsdel summary judgment, concluding that the impact rule barred the tortious-interference claim and that the evidence did not establish willful or wanton misconduct. The Third District affirmed the judgment as to non-economic emotional-distress damages, reversed as to the claim for economic damages based on alleged Funeral Act violations, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The trial court must determine whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether Van Orsdel violated sections 497.152(8)(c) and 497.386(2), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Van Orsdel is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.