ANTOINETTE LABELLA AND DONNA LABELLA, AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF VINCENT MICHAEL LABELLA, A MINOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
FOOD FAIR, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Michael LaBella's wife, daughter, and grandson sought a declaratory judgment that Florida's five-year limitation on workers' compensation death benefits is unconstitutional. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that since LaBella had not yet died and it was uncertain whether his death would result from the 1973 accident or whether the plaintiffs would survive him, the case presented only a hypothetical controversy unsuitable for judicial resolution.
The court held that a declaratory judgment cannot be issued in this case because the plaintiffs lack a present, justiciable controversy. Since LaBella had not yet died and it was uncertain whether his death would result from the 1973 accident or whether the plaintiffs would survive him, the case presented only a hypothetical controversy unsuitable for judicial resolution.
[1] A declaratory judgment action is not appropriate when the asserted legal injury is contingent, uncertain, and rests in the future.
[2] Courts will not render advisory opinions based on hypothetical states of facts that have not yet arisen.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical "state of facts which have not arisen" and are only "contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future."”
Establishes the core principle that courts cannot issue declaratory judgments on hypothetical or contingent matters lacking present justiciability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1973, Michael LaBella suffered a serious industrial injury while employed by Food Fair, Inc. and has received permanent total disability workers' c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Advisory Opinion cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
In 1973,. Michael LaBella, who is now 85 years of age, was seriously injured in an industrial accident while employed by Food Fair, Inc. He has received permanent total disability workers’ compensation payments ever since. In 1980, alleging they were his dependents and therefore the potential recipients of any compensation benefits payable for his death,1 LaBella’s wife, daughter and grandson brought an action in the circuit court for a declaratory judgment that the blanket five-year limitation in Section 440.16(1), Florida Statutes (1979) is unconstitutional. The provision states:
440.16 Compensation for death.
(1) If death results from the accident within 1 year thereafter or follows continuous disability and results from the accident within 5 years thereafter, the employer shall pay . . . (emphasis supplied)
The trial court dismissed the complaint and we affirm that decision.
Mr. LaBella has not yet died. There is therefore no way of knowing either (a) whether any of the plaintiffs will survive him or, (b) even more obviously, whether his death will be a result of the 1973 accident. Both of these contingencies must occur for any death benefits to be recovered even if the appellants’ position on the constitutional question were upheld. It is well-settled, however, that Florida courts will not render, in the form of a declaratory judgment, what amounts to an advisory opinion at the instance of parties who show merely the possibility of legal injury on the basis of a hypothetical “state of facts which have not arisen” and are only “contingent, uncertain, [and] rest in the future.” Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277, 283 (Fla.1976) and cases cited; Robinson v. Town of Palm Beach Shores, 388 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); American Indemnity Co. v. Southern Credit Acceptance, Inc., 147 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (“[T]he courts may not be required to answer a hypothetical question or one based upon events which may or may not occur.”); Harris v. Harris, 138 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 146 So. 2d 374 (Fla.1962). The clear applicability of this principle to the present situation requires that the judgment under review be
Affirmed.
. See Sec. 440.16(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- J. H. "Jim" Williams v. Howard, 329 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1976)
- Harris v. Rosalyn Harris, 138 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Emslie v. State, 146 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1962)
- Fuchs v. Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank, 146 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1962)
- Les Robinson v. Town OF Palm Beach Shores, 388 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Am. Indem. Co. v. S. Credit Acceptance, Inc., 147 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)