Understanding the Importance of Full Participation in Child Support Proceedings
A young boy’s visit to his father in Florida turned tragic after a nighttime fishing trip. Following an enjoyable evening on one of Florida’s many fishing bridges, the father and son were headed home around 11 p.m. in a car owned by the father’s wife. Along the way, a collision occurred when another vehicle turned in front of them. The crash, partly attributed to the father’s speeding and driving without headlights, left the boy with a traumatic brain injury after he was thrown into the dashboard. Despite clear evidence of negligence, the stepmother’s insurer refused to settle the claim, leading to protracted litigation. Ultimately, the insurer was found to have acted in bad faith when a verdict far exceeded the policy limits. Unfortunately, the child may never receive full compensation for his injuries due to Florida’s doctrine of parental immunity.
The Origins of Parental Immunity
Parental immunity, unlike interspousal immunity rooted in English common law, originated in the United States. The Mississippi Supreme Court first articulated the doctrine in Hewellette v. George (1891), barring a minor child from suing her mother. The court reasoned that family harmony and societal peace necessitated such immunity.
Florida adopted this doctrine in Orefice v. Albert (1970), where the court barred lawsuits between children and their parents to safeguard family resources and relationships. This stance emphasized the preservation of “family harmony and resources” as paramount.
Challenging the Doctrine: Ard and Waite
In Ard v. Ard (1982), the Florida Supreme Court revisited parental immunity. The case involved a mother whose negligent actions placed her infant son in harm’s way, resulting in severe injuries. Acknowledging the historical policy goals of the doctrine, the court recognized that the widespread availability of liability insurance had changed the landscape. It ruled that parental immunity should be waived to the extent of available insurance coverage, as such cases no longer threatened family assets or harmony.
Similarly, in Waite v. Waite (1993), the court struck down interspousal immunity, citing shifting societal norms and the trend among other states to abandon the doctrine. These cases signaled cracks in the armor of absolute family immunities.
The Role of Liability Insurance and Public Policy
The evolution of liability insurance reshaped how courts view family immunity doctrines. States that have abrogated or limited parental immunity often emphasize that insurance coverage eliminates the adversarial nature of intra-family lawsuits. Instead of depleting family resources, compensation flows from the insurer. At least 24 states have moved to fully or partially abolish parental immunity, permitting lawsuits where a parent’s negligence caused injury to their child.
Florida, however, has yet to take this step.
Stepparents and Parental Immunity
The case of the injured boy raises another question: should parental immunity extend to stepparents? Florida law has historically drawn distinctions between parents and stepparents in various contexts, such as probate and child welfare statutes. Courts in other jurisdictions have generally declined to extend parental immunity to stepparents unless they stand in loco parentis to the child. This nuanced approach reflects an understanding that the stepparent’s role may differ significantly from that of a natural or adoptive parent.
Insurer Bad Faith: A Compelling Exception?
Florida law imposes a duty of good faith on insurers to fairly evaluate and settle claims within policy limits. When an insurer acts in bad faith, it becomes liable for damages exceeding those limits. The doctrine of parental immunity, however, can shield insurers from bearing full responsibility for such damages, even when their bad faith has exacerbated the harm.
In cases like Allstate v. Sutton (1998), Florida courts have recognized that bad faith determinations can expose insurers to liabilities beyond policy limits. Extending this principle to parental immunity would serve public policy goals. If bad faith by an insurer results in full compensation for a child’s injuries, family resources remain intact, and family harmony may be preserved.
The Path Forward: Abrogation or Reform?
The rationale for parental immunity—protecting family resources and harmony—diminishes when liability insurance is involved. Rather than fostering family unity, the doctrine can hinder justice and discourage insurers from handling claims in good faith. Florida should join the growing number of states that have either abolished parental immunity or created exceptions in cases involving insurer bad faith. Such a step would align with modern legal and societal values, ensuring that children injured by parental negligence receive fair compensation while holding insurers accountable for their actions.
By retaining this outdated doctrine, Florida risks enabling insurers to act in bad faith without consequence. Reform is necessary to ensure justice for injured children and to promote ethical claims handling practices within the insurance industry.
