Title: Metropolitan Dade County v. Reyes
Citation: 688 So. 2d 311
Docket Number: 86911
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: December 19, 1996

688 So. 2d 311 (1996)
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, etc., Petitioner,
v.
Orlando REYES, et al., Respondents.
No. 86911.

Supreme Court of Florida.
December 19, 1996.
Rehearing Denied February 20, 1997.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Dade County Attorney; and Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Jason Bloch and Evan Grob, Assistant County Attorneys, Miami, for Petitioner.
Arnold R. Ginsberg, P.A. and Richard B. Burke and Todd R. Schwartz, Miami, for Respondent.
OVERTON, Justice.
We have for review Reyes v. Metropolitan Dade County, 661 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with Orange County v. Piper, 523 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1354 (Fla.1988). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We must address whether a spouse's derivative loss-of-consortium claim requires a separate or distinct notice pursuant to the provisions of section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1989). We find that a separate or distinct notice is required.
The record reflects the following. Orlando Reyes slipped and fell at a Dade County jail facility on December 5, 1989. Reyes was a delivery man for a purveyor. By letter dated August 6, 1990, Reyes served notice on the Board of County Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County, the Department of Risk Management, and the Insurance Commissioner's Office that he intended to pursue recourse for the injuries he incurred. The notice provided, in relevant part, the following:
On May 14, 1991, Reyes filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan Dade County in the *312 Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court. Reyes' wife, Beatriz Reyes, joined the suit, claiming loss of consortium.
On June 24, 1994, the trial court entered a directed verdict and final judgment in favor of the defendant, Metropolitan Dade County, as to Orlando Reyes' claim.[1] The court also entered a directed verdict in favor of Metropolitan Dade County as to Beatriz Reyes' loss-of-consortium claim based upon her failure to give the statutory notice required by section 768.28(6)(a).
The directed verdicts were appealed. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed. As to Mr. Reyes' claim, the district court found that the case should have gone before a jury. It then held that the trial court also erred in directing a verdict for Metropolitan Dade County on Mrs. Reyes' claim. The district court based this decision on its previous opinion in Chandler v. Novak, 596 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The issue there was
Id. at 750. The Chandler court concluded that the wife was not required to give separate notice of her derivative claim. It wrote:
Id. at 751. The district court relied upon this reasoning to reverse the directed verdict as to Mrs. Reyes' claim.
Metropolitan Dade County petitioned this Court to review the case because of direct conflict between two cases from different districts. Specifically, it claimed that the district court's opinion creates conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Piper. In that case, the district court addressed a situation in which a wife failed to provide notice of her loss-of-consortium claim. The district court concluded:
Piper, 523 So. 2d  at 198.
We hold that the applicable statute in this case requires an analysis such as that recited from Piper above. That statute, section 768.28(6)(a), reads:
In interpreting legislative waivers of sovereign immunity, we have repeatedly stated that we must strictly construe such waivers. Menendez v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 537 So. 2d 89, 91 (Fla.1988); Levine v. Dade County Sch. Bd., 442 So. 2d 210, 212 (Fla. 1983); Manatee County v. Town of Longboat Key, 365 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1978). The plain language of section 768.28(6)(a) clearly indicates that each claimant must give the proper notice. The purpose of the notice requirement is to give the appropriate public bodies an opportunity to investigate all claims. Metropolitan Dade County was denied such an opportunity in this case. For instance, Mr. Reyes' notice did not even indicate his marital status. Even if it had indicated that status, moreover, there is no strict rule that all spouses of injured persons qualify for a loss of consortium award. Propst v. Neily, 467 So. 2d 398, 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Albritton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 382 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Indeed, the Albritton court wrote:
Id. (footnote omitted). There are, consequently, valid investigatory reasons for requiring that notice be given of all claims "against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions." Accordingly, we agree with the Piper court that a loss-of-consortium claim must be so noticed.
For the reasons expressed, we quash the district court decision insofar as it holds that section 768.28(6)(a) does not require notice of derivative claims. We need not disapprove the Chandler decision because it involved a different statute. We note that the statute requiring notice in the Chandler case did not waive sovereign immunity and, therefore, was not subject to the same type of construction as we must accord section 768.28(6)(a). Finally, we refuse to address Metropolitan Dade County's invited error claim. We remand with directions that the trial court's judgment dismissing the derivative claim be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
[1]  The directed verdict as to Orlando Reyes' claim was "based upon the proffers as represented and the depositions."