### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JUL Y 9, 2003 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 02- 1328 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 00- 0111 5- CV -O RL -2 2C E RI CAT YN E , ind ivi dua lly and o n be ha lf

of F rank W il li am "Bi ll y " Tyne , Jr., BI L L IE -J O F RA

N CI S T YN E , ind ivi dua lly and o n be ha lf o f Fran k Wil li am

"Bi ll y " Tyne , Jr., ET AL. Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,

ve rs us TIME WA RNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P., d.b .a. W arn er Br os . Pic tu re, BALTIMORE/ SPRI NG CREEK PICTURES, L.L.C., a Del aware li m it edli ab il it y co m pa ny, E T AL. Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 9, 200 3) Be fo re BA RKE T T , MA RC U S an d A L A RC Ó N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M:The two Ty ne childre n bringthis appeal both in their individual capa cities and on be half of 1 the ir de c e a se d f

athe r, F ra nk Willi am “ B ill y” Ty

ne , Jr. Simi larl y , M ur

phy a pp e a ls i n h is individual capac ity

and on beha lf of his dec ease d fathe r, Da le R. Murphy , Sr. 2 E ri ca T yne , Bi lli e- Jo F ranc is T yne , D al e R. Murp hy , Jr . , D eb ra T igu e, and 1 Douglas Kosko, (c ollectively , the “ Ty ne Plaintiffs”) appeal an adverse summ ary j udgm en t gr an te d to T im e W ar ne r E nte rt ai nm en t C o. , d/b /aW ar ne r Br os. P ic tur es , Baltim ore/Spring Cree k Pictures, and Radiant Productions (collectively , “ W arner Br os. ”) on the ir

a ct ionf or una uth or iz ed c om m er ci al m isa

ppr opr ia tio n and i nva sio n of pr iva cy c onc er nin g th e m oti on p ic tur e T he P er fe ct S tor m ( “ the P ic tur e” ). T he Tyne Pl ai n t i ff

s co n t en dth at th e d i s tri ct co u rt erre di n fi n d i n g th at Fl o ri d a’s co m m er ci al m isa

ppr opr ia tio n st at

ute , se e Fl a. S ta t. § 54 0. 08 ( 1998 ), doe s no t extend to th is case. In addition, the Ty ne children, a lone, challenge the district co urt’ s gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t t o W ar

ne r Br os. on the ir

c la im that the Pi ct ur e’ s po rtray al of

the ir f athe r w as so e gr eg iou sly

f al se and o ff

en siv e as to al lowthe m

to br ing af

al se li ght inv as ionof

pr iva cy c la im , usu al ly

non descendible, on their own behalf. Be ca use w e ar e unsure of

the pr ope r re ac h of

F la . S ta t. § 54 0. 08 i n th is co nt ex t, we ce rti fy

th is qu es ti on to th e Fl or id a Supr em e Co ur t.3 I. BACKG ROUND InO ct obe r, 199 1, ar ar e co nf lue nc e of m et eo ro log ic al e ve nts le d to a

“ m as siv el y

pow er fu l” w eathe r sy ste m of f the N ewE ngl an d C oa st. T he f ish ing ve sse l kn ow n a s th e A ndr ea G ai l w as c au ght

in thi s st orm

and l ost a t se a. A ll six of the c re w m em

be rs on b oard

the A ndr ea

G ai l, inc lud ing Bi lly

T yne and D al e Mur phy , S r. , w er e pr es um ed

to have be enkil le d. N ew spa pe r an d te le vis ion re ports e xte nsi ve ly

c hr oni cl ed

the sto rm

and i ts i m

pa ct . B as ed

on the se r ep orts, an d pe rs ona l i nte rv ie w s w ithm et eo ro log ist s, loc al f ish er m en , and f

am ily m em be rs , S eb as tian Junge r pe nne d aboo k, e nti tle d T he P er fe ct S tor m : AT ru e St or y of Me n A ga ins t the S ea , r ec ount ing the sto rm and the la st v oy ag e of

the A ndr ea G ai l and i ts c re w . T he boo k w as pub lis he d in199 7. T ha t sam e y ear, W ar

ne r Br os. pur ch as ed

f ro m Jun ge r an d hi s pu

bli she r the ri ght s to pr oduc e a m oti on p ic tur e ba se d onthe boo k. W ar ne r Br os. r el ea se d th e film , e ntitled The Per fect S torm , f or public cons um

ption in 200 0. T he Picture de pic te d th e liv es and d eaths of Bi lly T y ne and D al e Mur

phy , S r. , w ho w er e m ai n ch ar ac te rs in the f

ilm . I t a lso inc lud ed

br ie f portr ay al s of

e ac h in div idu al that i s a party to thi s a ppe al . N one the le ss, W ar ne r Br os. ne ith er

sou ght pe rm iss ionf

ro m the indiv iduals depi cted in the picture nor com pensated them

in any m anner.4

U nli ke the boo k, the P ic tur e pr es en te d ac onc ed ed ly dr am at iz ed

a cc ount of both th e sto rm

and the c re wof

the A ndr ea

G ai l. F or

e xam ple , the m ai n protagon ist in th e Picture , B illy Ty ne, w as portray ed as a down-and-out s wordboat captain who w as obsessed with the next bi g catch. In one scene, the Picture re la te s an a dm itt ed ly

f ab ri cate d de pic tio n of

T yne be ratin g hi s c re wf or w an tin g to return to port in Gloucester, Massachusetts. W arner Bros. took addition al liberties w iththe land- ba se d in te rp er sona l r el at ion shi ps b etw ee n th e cr ewm em be rs and th ei r fam il ie s. Whil e the P ic tur e did

not hol d it se lf

out a s f ac tua lly a cc ur at e, it

did ind ic at e at the beginnin g of the film that “ TH IS F IL M IS BAS ED ONA TR UE ST ORY .” Adis cl ai m er

ins er te d duri ng the c los ing c re dit s e la bor at ed on this poi nt w iththe fo llo w ing state m en t: “ T his f ilm is ba se d ona ct

ua l hi sto ri ca l e ve nts c ont ai ne d in

‘ T he P er fe ct

S tor m ’ by S eb as tian Junge r. D ia log ue and c er ta in e ve nts and charac ters in the film

we re c reate d for the purpose of fictionalization.” O n Augus t 24 , 200 0, the T yne and M ur phy c hil dr en , a lon g w ithT igu e an d Ko s k o , f i l eds u i tag ai n s tWarn erBr o s . s ee k i n g re co m p en s e u n d erFl o ri d a’s co m m er ci al m isa

ppr opr ia tio n lawand f

or c om m on l awf

al se li ght inv as ionof pr iva cy . I n aMay

9, 200 2 O rd er , the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d W ar ne r Br os. ’ s m oti on for sum m ary j udgm ent on all count s. T he court found that (A) the te rmThe statute a lso ex tends the right to sue under this prohibition to relatives of de cede nts. See 2 Fla. Stat. § 540.08(1) (C). 5 “ co m m er ci al pur

pose ” in F la . S ta t. § 54 0. 08’ s w as not m eant t o e xte nd the statut e’ s r ea chto the use of an in div idu al ’ s nam e or

li ke ne ss i n an e xpr es siv e m ed ium , and ( B) the P ic tur e did not f al l i nto the narr ow“ re la tio na l r igh t of pr iv acy” exce pt io n t o t he ge ne ral rul e th atfal se li gh t cl ai m s ar e n on -d es cen di bl e.

II. D ISCU SSION A . C om m er ci al P ur po se The T yne Plaintiffs fir st allege err or in the district court’ s determ ination that L of t v. F ull er , 408 S o. 2d 6 19, 622 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 4thD ist . 198 1) , c ontro ls th is cas e an d p recl ud es th e ap pl ic at io n o f § 5 40 .08 to th e fac ts he rei n. Section 540.08 of the Florida Statutes prohibi ts the unauth orized use of a person’ s nam e or likeness for “ trade, com m ercia l, or a dvertising purposes.” Se e 2 V al en tin e v. C. B. S. , I nc . , 698 F . 2d 4 30, 433 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) . I n pe rt ine nt p ar t, the statut e re ad s a s f

oll ow s: (1 ) N o pe rs on s ha ll publ ish , pr int , dis play or oth er w ise pub lic ly

use f or purpos es of trade or for any com m ercia l or advertising pu rpose the nam e, portr ai t, pho tog ra

ph, or oth er li ke ne ss o f any

na tur al pe rs on w ith out

the e x p r e s s wr i t t e n o r

o r a l c o n s e n tt o s u c h u s e g i v e n b y:6 (a ) Su chpe rs on; or (b ) A ny oth er pe rs on, f irm or c or por at ionauth or iz ed

in w ri tin g by suc h pe rs on t o li ce nse the c om m er ci al use of

he r or his nam e or lik en es s; o r (c ) If suc h pe rs on i s de ce as ed , any pe rs on, f irm or c or por at ion au th o r i z e di n w r i t i n g t o l i c e n s e th e c o mme r c i a l u s e o f h e r o r h i s n a me or likeness, or if no person, f irm or corporation is so auth orized, then by any one f ro m a m ong a cl as s c om

pose d of he r or his sur viv ing spou se and s urviv ing c hil dr en . (2 ) Inthe e ve nt the c onse nt r equir ed in subs ec tio n ( 1) is not

obt ai ne d, the pe rs on whose nam e, portr ai t, pho tog ra ph, or oth er li ke ne ss i s so use d, or

any pe rs on, f irm , or c or por at ionauth or iz ed

by suc h pe rs on i n w ri tin g to li ce nse the c om m er ci al use of

he r or his nam e or

li ke ne ss, or , if

the pe rs on whose lik en es s is use d is de ce as ed , any pe rs on, f irm , or c or por at ionhavin g th e ri ght to giv e suc h c onse nt, a s pr ovi de d he re ina bove , m ay

br ing an a ct ionto enj oin su ch unautho rized publication, printing , display or other public use, and to recover dam ages for any loss or injury

sustained b y

rea son th ereof, inc lud ing an am ount

w hic h w oul d have be enar ea sona ble r oy al ty , and puni tiv e or

e xe m plary dam ag es . (3 ) T he pr ovi sio ns o f thi s se ct ionsha ll not appl y to: (a ) T he pub lic at ion , pr int ing , dis play , or use of the nam e or

li ke ne ss of any pe rs on i n any

ne w spa pe r, m ag az ine , boo k, ne w s br oa dc as t or te le ca st, or

oth er ne w s m ed ium

or pub lic at iona s part

of any bon a fi de ne w s r ep ort or

pr es en ta tio n havin g ac ur re nt and l eg iti m at e publ ic int er es t and whe re suc h nam e or li ke ne ss i s no t us ed

f or a dve rt isi ng pur pose s; (b ) T he use of

suc h nam e, portr ai t, pho tog ra ph, or oth er li ke ne ss i n co nne ct ionw iththe r es al e or oth er dis tr ibu tio n of

li te rary , m

usi ca l, or artistic production s or other articles of m erchandise or property wher e suc h pe rs on h as c onse nte d to the use of he r or his nam e, portr ai t, phot ogr ap h, or

li ke ne ss o n or

in co nne ct ionw iththe ini tia l sa le or distribu tion th ereof. Fl a. St at . § 5 40 .08 .7

The issue before this Court is whether the Picture ’ s adm ittedly unautho rized use of the T yne P la int if

fs ’ , and the ir

r el at ive s’ , nam es and l ike ne sse s w as “ fo r tra de , comm erci al , or a dv ert is in g p ur po se s,” a s t ha t p hr as e is us edin § 5 40 .08 . Id. T his is a sim ilar iss ue to the one pr es en te d inL of t v. F ull er . S ee L of

t, 408 S o. 2d at 622 . I n th at

c as e, the f

am ily of de ce de nt R obe rt

L of t su ed the auth or

of anon fi ct ionboo k e nti tle d T he G host of F lig ht 4 01. I d. Mr . L of

t ha d be enthe c ap ta in of E astern A irlines Flight 40 1 en route from Ne w Y ork to Miam i when it cr ashed int o th e Fl or ida

E ve rg la de s onD ec em

be r 28, 197 2. I d. I n a ddi tio n to the ex te nsi ve c ove ra ge that the c ra sh i tse lf r ec ei ve d, in the suc ce ed ing m onths num erous m edia outlets reported that peopl e on several subsequent Eastern A ir lin es f lig hts c la im ed

to have se enappari tio ns o f Fl igh t 40 1 c re w m em be rs , inc lud ing Mr . L of

t. I d. I n 19 76, auth or

Joh n F ull er

pub lis he d F lig ht 4 01, anon fiction account of both the cra sh and the reported polt ergeists. Am otion picture unde r the sam e tit le w as r el ea se d in197 8. I d. B othportr ay ed Mr . L of t a s agho st in a cc or danc e w iththe ne w spa pe r ac co unt s. T he L of

ts arg ue d th at

the unauth or iz ed

use of the de ce de nt’ s nam e (i n th e book and m ovi e) and l ike ne ss ( in the m ovie) violated Fla. S tat. § 540.08. Id. The L oft court disagreed and affir m ed th e tr ia l co ur t’s d is m is sa l o f th e Lof ts ’ co m pl ai nt wit h p reju di ce.8

Inr ea ch ing it s c onc lus ion , the L of t c ourt he ld tha t § 540. 08 “ is d es ign ed to prevent the unauth orized use of a nam e to directly prom ote the product or service of the pub lis he r. ” I d. a t 62 2- 23 ( em pha sis sup pli ed ). T he c ourt f ound that the te rm “ co m m er ci al , ” as e m

plo y ed in § 54 0. 08, “ w as [ not ] m eant t o be c onstru ed to ba r th e u se of p eo pl e’s na m es in [an y ] swe ep in g fa sh io n.” Id. at 62 3. Ra th er, § 540.08 protects in divid uals from the unautho rized use of their nam es or likenesses sol el y in the c ont ex t of

an a dve rt ise m en t or

pr om oti on. S ee id. T hus, the

“publ ic at ion[ of

ape rs on’ s nam e or

li ke ne ss] is harm fu l no t si m ply be ca use it is inc lud ed in a publ ic at ionthat i s so ld f or apr of it, but r athe r be ca

use of the w ay it as so ci at es th e in di vi du al ’s nam e o r hi s p ers on al it y wit h s om et hi ng els e.” Id . The T yne Plaintiffs ar gue that Loft is disting uishabl e because, in that case, the de pic tio n a cc or de d w iththe ne w spa pe r re ports o f L of

t’ s “ re ap pe ar an ce s” on oth er f lig hts , the re by

c le ar ly e nti tli ng i t t o F ir st A m en dm en t pr ote ct ion . I n th is ca se , how ev er , the T yne P la int if fs a sse rt that the P ic tur e’ s de pic tio n of the e ve nts at sea, and the relationship s betwee n the crewm em bers and their children, had never been re ported in the press and were intentio nally fabricated. T hus, they ar gue , the P ic tur e’ s r ep re se ntatio ns w er e “ know ing ly f al se ” an d, the re fo re , not pr ot ect edby the Fir stAm en dm en t.9

T he T yne P la int if

fs a lso poi nt o ut tha t a

ppl y ing L of

t t o th is c as e pr es en ts se ve ra l pr obl em s w ithr eg ar d to § 54 0. 08. F ir st, § 54 0. 08( 1) e m plo y s th e phr as e

“ any c om m er ci al or

a dve rt isi ng p ur

pose . ” S ee F la . S ta t. § 54 0. 08. T he T yne Plaintiffs note that if the statute covers only the prom otion of a product or service, the n th e te rm

“ any c om m er ci al . . . pur

pose ” is r en de re d surp lus ag e; the re w oul d be no n ee d to state both “ adve rt isi ng” and “ co m m er ci al ” if

the tw o te rm s ha d pr ec ise ly the sam e m eanin g. T his r ea din g, the y obs er ve , w oul d r

un c ount er

to the w el lknown pr inc ipl e that a

statut e shou ld b e re ad

to giv e ef

fe ct to ea chof

it s pr ovi sio ns an d to a voi d r en de ri ng any te rm s m er e sur

plu sa ge . S ee H awkin s v. F or d M oto r Co ., 74 8 S o. 2 d 9 93 , 10 00 (Fl a. 19 99 ); Se e Als o Hec ht m an v. Nat io ns Tit le Ins ., 840 So. 2d 993 , 996 (Fla. 2003 ) (“ It is an elem entary principle of statutory construction that signi ficance and effe ct m ust be giv en to every

word, phrase, se nte nc e, and p ar

t of the statut e if

pos sib le , and w or ds i n astatut e shou ld n ot b e co ns tru edas m ere s ur

pl us ag e.”) (c it at io n o m it te d) . T he T yne P la int if

fs a lso c ont en d th at

if § 54 0. 08 w er e re ad

to sol el y pr ev en t the una uth or iz ed use of anam e to d ir ec tly

pr om ote the pr oduc t or

se rv ic e of

the publ ish er , it

w oul d c onf

lic t w ithlangua ge in the statut e’ s tw o “ ex ce pti on” pr ovi sio ns. S pe ci fi ca lly , § 54 0. 08( 3) (a ) state s th at the statut e doe s no t a

ppl y to the use of a person’ s nam e or likeness in news or other m edia if the use im plicates10

pu bl ic in te res t an d i s n ot foran ad ve rti si ng pu rp os e. See Fl a. St at . § 5 40 .08 (3 )(a) . Phrased positively , § 540.08(3)(a ) asserts that the statute continues to apply to (i.e . co nse nt i s r equir ed

f or ) the use of

ape rs on’ s nam e or

li ke ne ss i n ne w s or

pub lic int er es t se tti ngs that i nvol ve a dve rt isi ng. B ut i f § 54 0. 08( 1) appl ie s on ly to adve rt isi ng o r pr om oti ona l purp ose s ina ll ca se s, the n th er e w oul d be no r ea son fo r § 54 0. 08( 3) (a ) to l im it the statut e’ s a ppl ic ab ili ty

to use s th at

inv olv e ne w s m ed ia

“ fo r adve rt isi ng p ur

pose s. ” I d. S ubse ct ion( 3) (a )’ s e xe m pti on p ro vis ionw oul d be un ne ces sa ry

si nc e al l ad ve rti se m en ts are co ve redby the m ai n ru le . Si m il arl y , th ere wo ul d b e n o n eedforth e se co nd , “ art is ti c wor ks ,” ex em pti on. S ee § 54 0. 08( 3) (b ). T his pr ovi sio n st at es that § 540. 08 d oe s no t a ppl y to the use of

ape rs on’ s nam e or

li ke ne ss t o r es el l/r ed istri but e ar tis tic w orks i f the indiv idual consen ted to the init ial sale/distribut ion of the produ ct. But it m akes little se nse f

or § 54 0. 08( 3) (b ) to e xe m

pt the r es al e of

art ist ic w orks i f § 54 0. 08( 1) applies sol ely

to advertisem ents. T hus, a narr ow interpretation o f § 540.08(1) as co ve ri ng o nly

use s th at dir ec tly pr om ote apr oduc t or

se rv ic e w oul d r en de r thi s se co nd e xe m

pti on s upe rf

luo us.

“ Su bst an tia l do ubt

about aque sti on o f state lawupo n w hic h apart ic ular ca se turns sho uld be resolved bycertify ing th e question to the state suprem e court. ” Jone s v. D ill ar d’ s, I nc . , - - F . 3d - - ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . B ec au se w e ar e unc er ta in a s toWe reviewde novo the district cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt, applying the same leg al 3 standard a s the district court. See Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Whi taker Contr. Corp., 242 F.3d 1035, 1040 (11th Cir. 2001). 11 the sc ope of

§ 5 40. 08 and the appl ic ab ili ty of the L of t de ci sio n inthe ci rc um stanc es pr es en te d he re , w e ce rt if y the f oll ow ing que sti on o f lawto the Su pr em e Co urt of

F lor ida : To w hat exte nt d oes Sect ion 540.08 of the F lorida Statut es apply to th e facts of t his case? Inor de r to a ssi st the c ourt’ s c onsi de ratio n of the c as e, the e nti re r ec or d, a lon g w ith the br ie fs of

the part ie s, sha ll be tr an sm itt ed he re w ithto the F lor ida

S upr em e Co urt. B. “Relational” Rightof P rivacy 3 Er ica and Billie-Jo T yne (“ the Ty nes”), separate and apart fr om the other Ty ne Plaintiffs, contest the dist rict court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent to W arner Br os. on the ir

c la im s th at

the P ic tur e portr ay ed

the ir f athe r in a f al se li ght . Whil e conceding th at false light invasion of privacy claim s are gener ally

non-descendib le, the T yne s arg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in fa ili ng t o r ec ogni ze the ir ow n, ind ivi dua l “ re la tio na l” r igh t of pr iva cy . T his nov el c ont en tio n is pr em ise d up on the pe rs ona l i nva sio n of

pr iva cy that the T yne s th em se lve s e xpe ri en ce d w he n th ei r father w as publicized in a false light. T he Ty ne daughters assert that the Picture falsely vilified their father a s an “ obsessedboat captain” and that this p ortray al w as

“ egregiouslypainful and injurious.”12

Be ca use the T yne s a sse rt

the ir r igh t t o r ec ove r fo r a “ re la tio na l” inv as ionof pr iva cy und er the c om m on l awof

the S ta te of

F lor ida , that st at e’ s lawc ontro ls o ur inqu iry . See Er ie R. Co. v. Tom pkin s, 304 U. S. 64, 78 (1938) (“ Exce pt in m atters governed bythe Feder al Constitut ion or byAc ts of Congress, the lawto be applied in any case is the lawof the State. ”). Florida’ s general rule is that re latives of a decedent m ay

not m aintain a cause of a ction for invasio n of privacy “ either based on the ir ow n pr iva cy

int er es ts o r as ar ep re se ntativ e fo r the de ce as ed w he re the alleged invasio n was direc ted, a s was the c ase here , prim arily at the decea sed.” L of t, 408 S o. 2d at 62 3. Whil e the F lor ida c ourts h av e expr es sly

de cl ine d to fo re cl ose a ll inv as ionof

pr iva cy a ct ion s br ough t by

the r el at ive s of

ade ce de nt, it

is clear that such actions are heavily disfavored. S ee id. at 624 (stating th at relatives

“ m us t s ho ul de r a h eav y

bu rd en in est ab li sh in g [s uc h] a cau se of a ct io n.” ). T he sol e ex ce pti on t o th e ge ne ra l r ule a ga ins t the de sc en dib ili ty of f al se li ght cl ai m s “ oc cu rs when pl ai nt iff s ex pe rie nc e an in de pe nd en t v io la ti on of t he ir o wn pe rs ona l pr iva cy

r igh ts o the r than th e vio la tio n a lle ge d to have oc curr ed ind ir ec tly by vir tue of the pub lic ity

giv ento the de ce as ed

. . . . ” W ill iam s v. Ci ty

of Mi nne ola , 575 S o. 2d 6 83, 689 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 5thD ist . 199 1) . T he r at ion al e behindthis exception “ is that the relatives of the decea sed have their own privacy interest in protecting th eir rights in the characte r and m em ory of the decea sed as13

we ll as the right to recover for their own hum iliation and wounded feelings caused by the pub lic at ion . ” L of

t, 408 S o. 2d at 62 4. T his “ re la tio na l r igh t of pr iva cy ” is ve ry li m ite d and a

ppl ie s on ly

w he re “ a de fe ndant’ s c ondu ct tow ar ds a

de ce de nt [ is] fo und to b e suf

fi ci en tly e gr eg iou s to giv e ri se to anind ep en de nt c au se of a ct ionin favor of m em

bers of [the] decedent’ s im m ediate fam ily .” Id. Such “ unus ual ci rc um stanc es ” ar e rare and, a s ar es ult , c la im s f or ade ri va tiv e ri ght

to pur sue f

al se li gh t cl ai m s “ wil l u su al ly be b arre d.” Id. Ba se d onthe f

or eg oin g st an dard , w e co nc ur w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the Pi ct ur e’ s po rtray al of

Bi lly T yne w as not

suf fi ci en tly e gr eg iou s to w ar

rant inv oc at ionof

the “ re la tio na l” r igh t of

pr iva cy doc tr ine . T he F lor ida

Co urts h av e m ad e it pla in tha t this e xc ep tio n w as not c ra ft ed to pr ovi de ade ri va tiv e ca use of ac tio n f or m ino r te ch nic al ina cc ur ac ie s, or e ve n m aj or

one s. S ee id. ; W ill iam s, 575 So . 2d at 68 9- 90. R athe r, the de fe ndant’ s tr eatm en t of the de ce de nt m

ust be

“ egregious.” L oft, 408 So. 2d at 624. T he Per fect S torm ’ s portray al of Billy Ty ne, w hil e pe rh ap s no t e nti re ly ing enuous , f

al ls c onsi de ra

bly sho rt of thi s st an dard . T he Fo urth D istri ct

of the F lor ida

Co urt of Appe al s r ea ch ed

asim ilar co nc lus ionin Loft, wher e the decedent w as portray ed as a ghost that haun ted various Eastern A ir lin es f lig hts . S ee id. a t 62 0. T ha t po rtray al w as not “ of asuf fi ci en tly e gr eg iou s na tur e to e sta

bli sh a c la im of inv as ionof

pr iva cy . . . . ” I d. a t 62 5; c om

pare w ith14

W illiam s, 575 So. 2d at 690 (finding th at “ the displ ay of grotesque pictures of a de ce as ed ’ s bo dy ” w as pr ec ise ly the sor t of “ eg re gio us s itu at ion s e nvi sio ne d in Loft, ” but refusing to reverse the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent based on a “ lim ite d di spl ay

of the vid eo ta

pe and the pho tog ra

phs” ). W e do n ot b el ie ve that the Florida courts, in cra fting this lim ited “ relational” right to privacy , intended to ex te ndth e ex cep ti on to de pi ct io ns th atare m erel y in accu rat e o r dr am at iz ed . Ac cordingly , w e conclude that the exception is in applicable in this case. QUE STION CE RTIF IED to the F lor ida S upr em e Co urt r eg ar din g th e sc ope of F la . S ta t. § 54 0. 08.