LLC v. Jay E. Reese

Decision

In this decision, there was a unanimous ruling to uphold the trial court’s decision to allow Reese to collect damages for economic impact. The majority also ruled Reese could collect damages for emotional distress and they sent clarifying questions to the Florida Supreme Court, which caused a partial dissent. The ruling reads:

"… we hold that the impact rule does not apply to intentional torts and, accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling in full. However, we acknowledge that there is significant confusion in Florida’s jurisprudence concerning the applicability of the impact rule to intentional tort."

The majority said that the trial court had plenty of evidence to support its ruling that allows Reese to collect damages for economic impact and emotional distress. They affirm the ruling without making arguments. The question they argued is about whether or not the impact rule should apply to this case, which is an intentional tort. The impact rule does not allow compensation for emotional distress.

They argued even if the impact rule applied to intentional torts generally, they would still find it did not apply to this type of intentional tort. But even if they found it did apply to this type of intentional tort, they would still determine it did not apply to this particular case, because, if asked, the jury may have found that Synergy acted with actual malice. If the jury agreed there was actual malice, that would make it an exception. This is not something the jury was asked to answer on the verdict form, but the possibility that Synergy acted with actual malice exists.

The majority found Florida’s law unclear and felt it was challenging to decide. They argue the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly said it applies only to negligence cases and has determined exceptions in some negligence cases. There is no example of the Florida Supreme Court applying the impact rule to intentional torts.

The majority felt that a handful of cases created some confusion, though. One example they provided is a ruling where the Florida Supreme Court said intentional torts are an exception for the impact rule, which implies that intentional torts were within the scope of the impact rule generally.

The Florida Supreme Court has never explicitly stated whether the impact rule applies to intentional torts or not. The majority concluded that the impact rule does not apply to intentional torts. They sent two questions to the Florida Supreme Court, asking them to clarify the law:

“(1) [Except for known exceptions], does the impact rule generally apply to intentional torts?

 (2) Does the impact rule apply to the tort of tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship and, if so, does the impact rule apply when … committed with actual malice?”

Partial Dissent: Judge Smith

"I would reach the opposite conclusion in looking at the history of the rule itself. … As to the certification of a question to the Florida Supreme Court, … I would restate and condense the majority’s certified questions…"

Smith agrees with the majority that uphold the lower court’s ruling to allow Reese to collect damages for economic losses. But he does not believe Reese should collect damages for emotional distress.

He argues that the majority looked at the history of the impact rule only relating to negligence cases. He looked at the history of the rule and believes it applies to tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. He says the main distress under this type of case is economic, not emotional. He argues that the cases that are exceptions to the impact rule have a main distress that is emotional.

He argues that the Florida Supreme Court never outright said ALL intentional torts are exceptions for the impact rule, and the majority interpreted what they said too broadly.

He disagrees with the majority that they should consider the possibility of actual malice. He says that because the jury wasn’t asked about actual malice, that they should not consider it. He also doesn’t believe it is an element of this type of case. He also stated actual malice should not be considered because “… Mr. Reece [sic] testified at trial he was unaware of anyone at Synergy having malice toward him.”*

Smith agrees that they should send a question to the Florida Supreme Court, but he would only ask:
“Does Florida’s impact rule apply to a claim for tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship?”

* Note from the editor: Actual malice is a confusing legal term, which has nothing to do with the common definition of malice: “‘actual malice’ means that the defendant said the defamatory statement ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’”