Facts
- Joe Anderson, Jr. sued Gannett Corporation, the publisher of a Florida newspaper, asserting a common-law claim for invasion of privacy under a “false light” theory based on a newspaper publication about him.
- After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment for Anderson on the false-light claim and awarded damages.
- Gannett appealed to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First DCA reversed, holding that a false-light claim is governed by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to defamation (not the four-year residual limitations period for unspecified torts) and that Anderson’s claim was therefore time-barred.
- The First DCA certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court and certified conflict with a different DCA decision that had applied a four-year limitations period to false-light claims.
Issues
- Is an invasion-of-privacy action based on a false light theory governed by the two-year statute of limitations for defamation or the four-year statute for unspecified torts?
- As a threshold matter, does Florida recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy such that any limitations question must be answered?
Decision
- The Florida Supreme Court applied its same-day decision in Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp and held that Florida does not recognize false light invasion of privacy as a cause of action.
- Because the certified limitations question assumed the existence of a valid false-light claim, the Court treated the statute-of-limitations question as moot.
- The Court approved the First DCA’s result to the extent it set aside Anderson’s false-light recovery, but quashed the portion of the First DCA’s reasoning that analyzed which limitations period would apply to false light.
- As a practical matter, Anderson could not recover on a false-light theory because that tort is not available under Florida law.
Legal Principles
- Florida does not recognize false light invasion of privacy as an actionable tort.
- When a certified question depends on a cause of action that Florida does not recognize, the court need not decide subsidiary questions (such as the applicable statute of limitations) because any answer would be advisory.
- Conflicting DCA decisions applying different limitations periods to false-light claims are superseded once the state supreme court rejects false light as a recognized tort.
- Plaintiffs complaining of harmful publications must proceed, if at all, under recognized theories such as defamation or other established privacy torts, rather than false light.
Conclusion
In Anderson v. Gannett Corporation, the Florida Supreme Court declined to choose between a two-year and four-year statute of limitations for false-light claims because, under its controlling decision in Jews for Jesus, Florida does not recognize false light invasion of privacy at all; accordingly, Anderson’s false-light judgment could not stand and the limitations dispute was moot.