Roden v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
145 So. 3d 183
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Loretta Roden filed a personal injury complaint against tobacco companies as part of the Engle class; Loretta died in 2008 during pendency.
- Roden substituted as Loretta’s personal representative in January 2009 to continue the action.
- Tobacco companies moved to dismiss in August 2011, arguing the personal injury claim abated and a wrongful death claim could not be added.
- Roden sought leave to amend to add a wrongful death claim; defendants opposed.
- Trial court granted dismissal in October 2011 citing 768.20, Capone I, and Niemi; Roden appealed and argued Capone II overruns Capone I and permits amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a personal injury suit be amended to add a wrongful death claim after the decedent’s death? | Roden contends Capone II allows adding wrongful death.” | Defendants relied on Capone I’s abatement rule and required separate wrongful death action. | No; Capone II invalidated Capone I’s abatement interpretation. |
| Does the wrongful death claim relate back to the original complaint for purposes of the statute of limitations? | Wrongful death relates back under Rule 1.190(c). | Claim should be time-barred if not relate back. | Yes; relate back applies, preserving timely amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capone v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., 116 So.3d 363 (Fla. 2013) (abate not dismissal; permits amendment to include wrongful death when appropriate)
- Capone v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., 56 So.3d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Capone I; abatement interpretation overturned by Capone II)
- Niemi v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 862 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (abrogated abatement reasoning in Capone I context)
- Cox v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 360 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (wrongful death amendment not allowed where new and different cause of action)
- Surette v. Broward County Board, 394 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (survival action added after limitations ran; distinguishable)
- Handley v. Anclote Manor Foundation, 253 So.2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (amendment adding party can relate back when no prejudice)
- Flores v. Plaza Pac. Equities, Inc., 847 P.2d 722 (Nev. 1993) (notice and same facts support relation back)