Cheri Surloff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dr. Arthur B. Surloff, etc. v. Regions Bank and Mark K. Anderson
179 So. 3d 472
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Decedent Dr. Arthur Surloff had mental/physical impairments and family warned Regions Bank staff he could not process complex/negative financial information and was prone to self-harm.
- Family requested Regions not contact the decedent except for ministerial/document matters; bank representatives repeatedly agreed to refrain from discussing substantive financial matters.
- By mistake the decedent received a denial letter, became upset; despite instructions not to contact him, Regions employee Mark Anderson spoke with the decedent and later told him his loan was denied.
- The decedent subsequently attempted suicide and died; his family brought wrongful-death claims against Regions and Anderson for negligent undertaking and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Trial court dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, finding no duty existed; appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Regions owed a legal duty to prevent the decedent's suicide under negligent-undertaking/"special relationship" principles | Regions voluntarily undertook to avoid contacting the decedent about complex matters, creating a duty to act carefully and protect him from foreseeable harm | A bank has no custody/control over a client and thus no special relationship or ability to prevent suicide; no duty exists | No duty existed; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether foreseeability of suicide alone creates liability | Foreseeability (bank knew of fragility and that contact could traumatize him) is sufficient when undertaking communication limitations | Foreseeability without ability to control risk does not create a duty | Foreseeability alone insufficient; defendant must be able to control the risk |
| Whether negligent infliction of emotional distress claim survives absent a duty | Bank's assurances created reliance and foreseeable emotional harm, supporting the claim | NIED requires an underlying duty; absent duty, claim fails | NIED fails because no legal duty was recognized |
| Whether Rafferman (shipowner duty) compels a different result | Foreseeability of suicide in Rafferman shows similar liability principles should apply here | Rafferman rests on maritime law and shipowner control over seamen — not analogous to bank-client relationship | Rafferman inapplicable; banks lack the supervisory/control relationship of shipowners |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodall v. Whispering Woods Ctr., L.L.C., 990 So. 2d 695 (4th DCA 2008) (motion to dismiss review limited to complaint; facts accepted as true)
- Clay Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Johnson, 873 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2003) (undertaker doctrine and duty analysis)
- McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1992) (foreseeability as core of duty analysis)
- Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1989) (duty to lessen foreseeable risks)
- Union Park Mem'l Chapel v. Hutt, 670 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1996) (voluntary undertaking creates duty when it creates a foreseeable zone of risk)
- Aguila v. Hilton, Inc., 878 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2004) (duty requires ability to control risk)
- Paddock v. Chacko, 522 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1988) (duty to prevent suicide based on custody/control in institutional settings)
- Kelley v. Beverly Hills Club Apartments, 68 So. 3d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (no liability for suicide absent specific duty of care)
- Tuten v. Fariborzian, 84 So. 3d 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (no duty where patient was outside facility's range of observation/control)
- Rafferman v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 659 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (shipowners under maritime law bear special safety responsibilities for seamen)