342 So.3d 732
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2008 an uninsured motorist hit John Andreasen, leaving him permanently disabled and initiating litigation over uninsured motorist coverage stacking and counsel’s representation.
- After years of disputes against his insurer and his attorneys, John’s uninsured-motorist claims lapsed and his legal challenges against his former counsel failed to preserve coverage claims.
- John died by suicide on March 10, 2019. His brother Andrew, as personal representative, sued John’s former attorneys for wrongful death and survival damages, alleging negligence/legal malpractice proximately caused the death by depriving John of funds for treatment and causing pain leading to suicide.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, concluding the attorneys owed no legal duty to prevent John’s suicide and malpractice did not proximately cause the death.
- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding attorneys do not have a legal duty to prevent a client’s suicide absent a special custodial/control relationship or facts showing ability to supervise the decedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attorneys owed a legal duty to prevent John’s suicide | Andrew: attorneys’ malpractice caused lapse of coverage and deprived John of ability to pay treatment, so attorneys owed a duty to prevent harm | Attorneys: no special relationship, no custody/control, foreseeability alone insufficient to create duty | No duty; court affirmed dismissal |
| Whether malpractice/lapse of coverage proximately caused the suicide | Andrew: lapse led to financial inability to obtain care/medication, causing pain and suicide | Attorneys: causal chain too attenuated; suicide not a foreseeable legal consequence creating liability | Held causal link insufficient as matter of law |
| Whether complaint stated a viable wrongful death/legal malpractice claim | Andrew: alleged negligence and proximate causation sufficient to plead claim | Attorneys: allegations legally insufficient because no duty and no proximate cause | Complaint facially insufficient; dismissal proper |
| Whether courts should extend medical-style duty to attorneys to prevent suicide | Andrew: (implicitly) malpractice can include duty to protect client from foreseeable self-harm | Attorneys: no precedent extends such a duty to attorneys; policy and control concerns weigh against it | Court declined to extend duty to attorneys |
Key Cases Cited
- Toombs v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 833 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 2002) (wrongful-death requires defendant’s wrongful act that would have permitted decedent to sue if alive)
- Crawley-Kitzman v. Hernandez, 324 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (standard of review for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action)
- Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 2009) (elements of legal malpractice)
- Florida Department of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2007) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Kelley v. Beverly Hills Club Apartments, 68 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (no liability for suicide absent specific duty, custody, or control)
- Paddock v. Chacko, 522 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (no general duty to prevent suicide absent custodial circumstances)
- Surloff v. Regions Bank, 179 So. 3d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (foreseeability alone insufficient; need position to control risk)
- Rafferman v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 659 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (no duty to prevent suicide absent knowledge of suicidality)
- Granicz v. Chirillo, 147 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (medical professional may have duty to assess/intervene when standard of care requires it)