Case Title: Snowten v. US Fidelity and Guar. Co.

Citation: 475 So. 2d 1211

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1985-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
475 So. 2d 1211 (1985)
Harold SNOWTEN, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY and Willie Lee Snowten, Respondents.
No. 64171.

Supreme Court of Florida.
August 29, 1985.
Rehearing Denied October 23, 1985.
Anthony J. Salzman, Gainesville, for petitioner.
Lauchlin T. Waldoch of Dell, Graham, Willcox, Barber, Henderson, Monaco & Cates, and Toby S. Monaco of McGalliard, Mills, deMontmollin, Smith & Monaco, Gainesville, for respondents.
Jane Kreusler-Walsh and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Kimberly A. Ashby of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, for Florida Defense Lawyers Association, amici curiae.
BOYD, Chief Justice.
The First District Court of Appeal, in a decision reported as Snowten v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 435 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), certified to this Court a question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and approve the decision of the district court.
Respondent Willie Lee Snowten negligently struck her husband Harold Snowten *1212 while operating the family automobile, causing serious bodily injury. Mr. Snowten brought this negligence action against his wife and their insurance carrier, United States Fidelity and Casualty Co. (Fidelity). Respondents' motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court based on the interspousal immunity doctrine. The First District affirmed, citing Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 886, 101 S. Ct. 240, 66 L. Ed. 2d 111 (1980), but certified to this Court as a question of great public importance:
Snowten, 435 So. 2d  at 951.
The parties agree that petitioner's damages exceed the $10,000 insurance coverage, that the actions producing the injuries were not intentional, and that the only bar to petitioner's recovery in this action is the doctrine of interspousal immunity. Petitioner asserts that this Court should abrogate the doctrine, arguing that the reasons supporting interspousal immunity are no longer valid and that recent Florida case law reflects a trend away from the doctrine. Although interspousal immunity is a rule of common law adopted by section 2.01, Florida Statutes (1981), petitioner argues that this Court should use its power to abrogate the doctrine.
The policy reasons traditionally advanced for preserving the doctrine of interspousal immunity are (1) the legal unity of husband and wife; (2) avoidance of marital disharmony; and (3) avoidance of fraudulent and collusive claims. Raisen v. Raisen; see also Orefice v. Albert, 237 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1970); Bencomo v. Bencomo, 200 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1967); Corren v. Corren, 47 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1950). These reasons have not lost their vitality since we last visited this issue. This Court reiterated in Raisen, as it had stated in Corren, that the passage of the Married Women's Property Acts did not destroy the legal unity of the marriage relationship. We agree with respondent that
Likewise, abrogation of interspousal immunity would increase the potential for marital disharmony and collusive claims. As Justice Alderman stated for this Court in Raisen,
379 So. 2d  at 355. Even if, as it is urged here, the doctrine of interspousal immunity were abrogated only to the extent of insurance coverage, the suit remains "spouse versus spouse" with its potential disruptive effect on the marital unit: the insurance carrier cannot be joined as a party to the action until judgment is obtained against the insured spouse. § 627.7262, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1982); see also Van Bibber v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Insurance Co., 439 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1983).
Petitioner argues that our decisions in Ard v. Ard, 414 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1982); Woods v. Withrow, 413 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1982); Hill v. Hill, 415 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1982); and Dressler v. Tubbs, 435 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1983), indicate an intention by this Court to recede from our holding in Raisen and abrogate the doctrine of interspousal immunity. We disagree. We did not reach *1213 the certified question in Dressler v. Tubbs, which is essentially the question before us today, because such an answer was unnecessary to the determination of the cause. Therefore that decision should not be interpreted as receding from prior decisions of this Court. Ard, Woods, and Hill all dealt with situations that are distinguishable from this case. Further, this Court will not abrogate any part of the common law enacted by section 2.01 unless there is a compelling need for a change and the reason for the law no longer exists. That is not the case here. We stated in Raisen that the legislature "has not spoken in positive unambiguous language to abrogate interspousal tort immunity." 379 So. 2d  at 354. As stated by the trial court below,
We answer the question in the negative and approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which McDONALD, J., concurs.
ADKINS, J., dissents.
OVERTON, Justice, dissenting.
Consistent with our recent modification of the family immunity doctrine in Ard v. Ard, 414 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1982), I would modify interspousal immunity to the extent of available liability insurance.
McDONALD, J., concurs.