## Facts

- Josephine and Vito Sturiano were longtime New York residents who purchased an automobile liability policy in New York.
- The couple spent winters in Florida; the insurer was not shown to have been notified of any change in residency.
- In Florida, Vito (driver) crashed the vehicle into a tree; Vito died and Josephine (passenger) was injured.
- Josephine sued Vito’s estate for negligence and was also the personal representative of the estate; the court appointed Martin Brooks as guardian ad litem to represent the estate’s interests.
- Vito left no heirs or lineal descendants other than Josephine.
- A jury found for Josephine, and the award was reduced to the amount of applicable insurance coverage.
- On appeal, the district court concluded interspousal immunity did not bar the suit, but applied New York law to the insurance policy under lex loci contractus and held the policy provided no spousal-claim coverage absent an express provision.

## Issues

1. Whether interspousal tort immunity bars a negligence claim by an injured passenger spouse against the deceased driver spouse’s estate when the claim is limited to insurance proceeds, the plaintiff is the only interested party in the estate, and a guardian ad litem is appointed.
2. Whether Florida’s choice-of-law rule for automobile liability policies requires applying the law of the state where the policy was executed (lex loci contractus) to determine coverage, even though the accident occurred in Florida.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified interspousal-immunity question “no,” approving the ruling that interspousal immunity did not bar the action on these facts.
- The Court reaffirmed Florida’s use of lex loci contractus for automobile insurance contracts and applied New York law because the policy was executed in New York.
- Under New York law, coverage for one spouse’s tort claim against the other required an express policy provision; because the policy lacked such a provision, there was no coverage.
- The Court’s disposition left the plaintiff without collectible insurance proceeds despite prevailing on the tort-immunity question.

## Legal Principles

- Interspousal tort immunity does not necessarily bar a negligence action when the defendant spouse is deceased and the usual policy justifications (marital harmony, depletion of assets to the detriment of other heirs) are not implicated and the estate is independently represented.
- Florida applies lex loci contractus to determine which state’s law governs interpretation of an insurance policy: generally, the law of the place where the contract was made controls.
- When the governing state’s law conditions coverage for interspousal liability on an express policy term, the absence of that term defeats coverage even if the underlying tort claim is otherwise permissible.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the widow’s negligence claim against her deceased husband’s estate notwithstanding interspousal immunity, but applied New York insurance law under lex loci contractus and held the policy afforded no coverage for spousal claims without an express endorsement, preventing recovery from insurance proceeds.


Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1988)