SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. v. Muñoz

Third District Court of Appeal
Opinion filed September 17, 2014.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D14-1240
Lower Tribunal No. 08-53186
________________
SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc.,
Petitioner,
vs.
Raul Muñoz, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose
Rodriguez, Judge.
Gray Robinson and Ted C. Craig, for petitioner.
Billbrough & Marks and Geoffrey B. Marks, for respondents.
Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and SUAREZ and SALTER, JJ.
SALTER, J.
SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. (“SCI”), seeks a writ of certiorari
quashing a circuit court order allowing the respondents to assert a claim for
punitive damages. We grant the petition.
The proposed third amended complaint alleged the following facts. The
respondents, plaintiffs below, are the parents of Yetsiyel Muñoz Ceballos,
deceased. One of Mr. Ceballos’s parents entered into a contract with a Miami
funeral home (Auxiliadora Funeraria Nacional, or “Auxiliadora”). The contract
contemplated that Mr. Muñoz Ceballos's body would be shipped to Cuba, where a
wake and burial would be conducted.
SCI, doing business as “Gold Coast Crematory” and not affiliated with
Auxiliadora, allowed Auxiliadora to store human remains in SCI’s cooler for a fee.
Auxiliadora’s employees, not SCI’s, transported Mr. Muñoz Ceballos’s body to
SCI’s cooler, where they entered in SCI’s log book the date, the location in the
cooler where the body was placed, Mr. Muñoz Ceballos’s name, an Auxiliadora
employee’s name and signature, and an abbreviation showing that Auxiliadora was
the funeral home. At the same time, the same two Auxiliadora employees
delivered the body of another, unrelated, decedent, using the same log book
procedure. The remains of the second decedent were to be cremated.
It was later determined that Auxiliadora shipped the remains of the unrelated
decedent to Cuba (instead of the remains of Mr. Muñoz Ceballos) and that Mr.
Muñoz Ceballos’s body was cremated at the SCI facility. The allegations and
pretrial discovery relating to Auxiliadora also alleged that its owner, Mr. Alkhalifa,
2
and other employees deceived Mr. Muñoz Ceballos’s family for days regarding the
actual circumstances of the cremation. There were no such allegations regarding
SCI or its own employees.
In their proposed third amended complaint, Mr. Muñoz Ceballos’s parents
sought damages against Auxiliadora for tortious interference, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 497,1 and punitive
damages, and against SCI for negligence, violations of Chapter 497, and punitive
damages. The trial court declined to make findings that would impute the alleged
conduct of SCI’s employee or employees to SCI under the applicable statutory
procedure. Subsections 768.72(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (2013), specify:
(2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the
trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the
defendant was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross
negligence. As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Intentional misconduct" means that the defendant had actual
knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high
probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and,
despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct,
resulting in injury or damage.
(b) "Gross negligence" means that the defendant's conduct was so
reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such
conduct.
(3) In the case of an employer, principal, corporation, or other legal
1 The Florida Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services Act. § 497.001, Fla. Stat
(2013).
3
entity, punitive damages may be imposed for the conduct of an
employee or agent only if the conduct of the employee or agent meets
the criteria specified in subsection (2) and:
(a) The employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity actively
and knowingly participated in such conduct;
(b) The officers, directors, or managers of the employer, principal,
corporation, or other legal entity knowingly condoned, ratified, or
consented to such conduct; or
(c) The employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity engaged
in conduct that constituted gross negligence and that contributed to the
loss, damages, or injury suffered by the claimant.
Here, as in Coronado Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. La Corte, 103 So. 3d 239(Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the respondents failed to proffer evidence satisfying any of
the three categories of corporate involvement established in section 768.72(3)(a),
(b), or (c), as required to subject SCI to a punitive damages claim. The
respondents’ failure to comply with this statutory procedure and the trial court’s
resulting order may be redressed by certiorari. Espirito Santo Bank v. Rego, 990
So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Based on these authorities and our review of the record, we grant the petition
and quash the order granting leave to the plaintiff/respondents to add a punitive
damages claim against SCI.
4