ANN LOTIERZO
v.
THOMAS EUTENEUER,
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.
This case involves a parishioner suing a priest and church hierarchy for emotional distress. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of some claims against the church hierarchy, finding the impact rule inapplicable to breaches of fiduciary duty.
The appellate court held that the impact rule does not apply to claims for breach of fiduciary duty, as established by Florida Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, the dismissal of claims against the church hierarchy based solely on the impact rule was improper.
[1] The impact rule, which requires physical injury to recover for emotional distress, does not apply to claims arising from a breach of a fiduciary relationship.
[2] A fiduciary duty may arise in a counseling relationship between a priest and a parishioner.
Previewing 2 of 5 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’s impact rule is “a judicially-created rule designed to assure the validity of claims for emotional distress.””
Defines the purpose of the impact rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA parishioner filed a third amended complaint against a priest and church hierarchy, alleging causes of action arising from counseling with the priest…
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 Florida'S Impact Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Emily C. Smith, Daniel C. Dresch, and Michael A. Mullen of Gaebe Mullen Antonelli DiMatteo, Coral Gables, for appellees Gerald Barbarito, Felipe De Jesus Estevez, Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc., and Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. GROSS, J.
In her third amended complaint, a parishioner has attempted to state causes of action against a priest and the church hierarchy arising out of her ongoing counseling relationship with the priest.
The trial judge dismissed four counts against the church hierarchy with prejudice based on the application of Florida’s impact rule, leaving the priest as the only remaining defendant.
Florida’s impact rule is “a judicially-created rule designed to assure the validity of claims for emotional distress.” Woodard v. Jupiter Christian Sch., Inc., 913 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Int’l Ocean Tel. Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434, 14 So. 148 (1893)). The rule requires that “before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact.” Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 206 (Fla. 2007) (quoting R.J. v. Humana of Fla., Inc., 652 So. 2d 360, 362 (Fla. 1995)).
In Doe v. Evans, the Florida Supreme Court recognized that a fiduciary duty generally arises in counseling relationships such as those between a priest and a parishioner. 814 So. 2d 370, 373–75 (Fla. 2002). And in Gracey v. Eaker, the Florida Supreme Court held that the breach of such a fiduciary relationship is not subject to the impact rule. 837 So. 2d 348, 355–56 (Fla. 2002). Appellant’s counts seeking recovery against the church hierarchy may be subject to dismissal for many reasons, but not because of application of the impact rule.
Appellant’s attorney made statements at a hearing that make it unclear what legal theories she is pursuing against the defendants. Appellant should be given one more chance to file a focused amended complaint setting forth her claims.
We affirm the dismissal of “Count Six—Duty to Disclose” because it does not state a recognized cause of action apart from a breach of fiduciary duty, which appellant had attempted to assert in a separate count.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Diversified Land Mgmt., LLC v. Agosto (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…ng United [*5] Applicable Law "To maintain an action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed a duty, that the defendant breached that duty, and that this breach caused the plaintiff damages." Fla. Dept. of Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 2007) (citing Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So. 2d 570, 573 (Fla. 2001)). As to causation, “Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff's i…
Authorities Cited
- Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2002)
- R.J. and P.J. v. Humana OF Fla., Inc., 652 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1995)
- Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2007)
- DOE v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2002)
- Int'l Ocean Tel. Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434 (Fla. 1893)
- Lotierzo v. Euteneuer (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
- Woodard v. Jupiter Christian Sch., Inc., 913 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)