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.
Breach of a fiduciary duty arising from a counseling relationship between a priest and parishioner is not subject to Florida's impact rule, and dismissal of counts against the church hierarchy based on that rule was improper.
[1] A breach of fiduciary duty arising from a counseling relationship, such as that between a priest and parishioner, is not subject to Florida's impact rule requiring physic…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“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.”
Court's explanation of why the impact rule did not support dismissal of the counts against church hierarchy
A parishioner filed a third amended complaint asserting claims against a priest and church hierarchy arising from an ongoing counseling relationship. …
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.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2002)…unction of weeding out fraudulent claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The impact rule has had a long legal history in this state, beginning with this Court’s decision in International Ocean Telegraph Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434, 14 So. 148 (1893). In essence, the impact 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 impa…
-
Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1974)…-411. The following cases illustrate this Court’s thinking in the development of the so-called “impact rule” involving recovery in negligence cases resulting in mental pain and suffering. International Ocean Telegraph Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434, 14 So. 148 (1893), involved mental pain and suffering as the result of the failure of a telegraph company to promptly deliver a telegraphic message. No recovery was permitted. This Court stated: “In the case under consideration, the plaintiff’s suit, though…
-
R.J. and P.J. v. Humana OF Fla., Inc., 652 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1995)…fficient facts are alleged in the complaint to meet the requirements of the impact rule. The impact rule has had a long legal history in this state, beginning with this Court’s decision in International Ocean Telegraph Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434, 14 So. 148 (1893). In essence, the impact 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 impa…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- Woodard v. Jupiter Christian Sch., Inc., 913 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)