## Facts

- Orlando Reyes, a delivery worker, slipped and fell on a greasy loading-dock floor at a Dade County jail facility on December 5, 1989.
- On August 6, 1990, Reyes’s counsel sent written presuit notice to the County and relevant agencies under section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (1989), stating intent to pursue a claim for Orlando’s injuries from the slip-and-fall.
- On May 14, 1991, Orlando Reyes sued Metropolitan Dade County for negligence; his wife, Beatriz Reyes, joined with a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
- The trial court directed a verdict for the County on Orlando’s negligence claim and separately directed a verdict against Beatriz’s consortium claim for failure to provide the statutory notice required by section 768.28(6)(a).
- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed as to both claims and held Beatriz’s consortium claim could proceed without separate statutory notice.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted review due to conflict among district courts on whether consortium claimants must provide separate notice.

## Issues

1. Whether section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), requires a spouse asserting a derivative loss-of-consortium claim against a governmental entity to give separate presuit notice, even when the injured spouse gave notice of the injury claim.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court held that a spouse’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim requires separate and distinct presuit notice under section 768.28(6)(a).
- The Court quashed the Third District’s decision in part to the extent it allowed Beatriz Reyes’s consortium claim to proceed without separate notice.
- The Court approved the district court authority requiring separate notice for consortium claims and disapproved contrary authority to the extent of conflict.
- The Court’s review addressed only the statutory-notice question affecting the consortium claim, not the merits of Orlando Reyes’s underlying negligence claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under section 768.28(6)(a), a claimant may not institute an action against the state or its subdivisions unless the claimant timely presents the claim in writing to the appropriate agency and the Department of Insurance.
- A loss-of-consortium claim, though derivative of the injured spouse’s claim, is a separate cause of action and constitutes a separate “claim” for purposes of the statutory presuit notice requirement.
- The presuit notice requirement is designed to give the governmental entity an opportunity to investigate and evaluate exposure and settlement before litigation; notice of the injured spouse’s claim does not, by itself, satisfy notice for the spouse’s additional consortium damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse seeking loss-of-consortium damages from a governmental entity must independently comply with section 768.28(6)(a)’s written presuit notice requirement; failure to do so bars the consortium claim even if the injured spouse properly noticed the underlying injury claim.


Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Reyes, 688 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1996)