Advisory Opinion to Atty. Gen., Limitation of Non-Economic Damages in Civil Actions, In re

• Decision Date: 26 February 1988
• Docket Number: NON-ECONOMIC,No. 71701,N-ECONOMIC,71701
• Citation: 520 So.2d 284,13 Fla. L. Weekly 170
• Parties: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 170 In re ADVISORY OPINION TO the ATTORNEY GENERAL, LIMITATION ofDAMAGES in CIVIL ACTIONS.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 284

520 So.2d 284

13 Fla. L. Weekly 170

In re ADVISORY OPINION TO the ATTORNEY GENERAL, LIMITATION of NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES in CIVIL ACTIONS.

No. 71701.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 26, 1988.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Frederick B. Karl of Karl, McConnaughhay, Roland and Maida, Tallahassee, and William H. Adams, III of Mahoney, Adams, Milam, Surface & Grimsley, Jacksonville, for Florida Committee for Liability Reform Supporting Validity of the Proposed Amendment and Ballot Summary.

Robert P. Smith, Jr. and David L. Powell, Tallahassee, for Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers Opposing Validation of the Proposed Initiative and Referendum.

PER CURIAM.

The attorney general has petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion on the validity of an initiative petition amending article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution. We have jurisdiction. Art. IV, § 10, Fla. Const.; § 16.061, Fla.Stat. (1987).

We examine the text of the proposed amendment to determine if it meets the single subject test of article XI, section 3 of the Florida Constitution and the ballot title and substance for compliance with section 101.161, Florida Statutes (1987). See In Re: Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General, English-The Official Language of Florida, 520 So.2d 11 (Fla.1988).

The initiative petition reads as follows:

Section 1.

Article 1, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution is amended by adding the following: provided that a person entitled to recover damages for bodily injury in any action brought after the effective date of this Amendment may not recover an aggregate of more than $100,000 for non-economic losses. Non-economic losses include pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of capacity to enjoy life, loss of consortium and other non-pecuniary losses.

Section 2.

Article 1, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution is further amended by adding the following: By general law the maximum amount recoverable may be adjusted to conform to changes that occur after the effective date of this Amendment in a consumer price index published by the United States Government.

Section 3. Schedule.

A) If this Amendment is held invalid for containing more than one subject, this Amendment shall be limited to Section 1.

B) This Amendment shall take effect thirty days after the date of the election at which it is approved.

The ballot title and summary for the proposed amendment provides:

LIMITATION OF NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS

Amendment provides that a person entitled to recover damages for bodily injuries in any action may not recover more than $100,000 for non-economic losses; defines non-economic losses to include pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of capacity to enjoy life, loss of consortium and other non-pecuniary losses; provides by general law the maximum amount recoverable may be adjusted utilizing a consumer price index published by the United States Government; provides an effective date.

The Florida Committee for Liability Reform has submitted briefs in support of the proposed amendment and the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers has submitted briefs in opposition. Both parties appeared at oral argument. The committee argues that the cap on non-economic damages in section one is a single subject, that sections two and three are directly related thereto, and that the proposed amendment is analogous to those which we approved in Carroll v. Firestone, 497 So.2d 1204 (Fla.1986), and Floridians Against Casino Takeover v. Let's Help Florida, 363 So.2d 337 (Fla.1978), receded from in part by Fine v. Firestone, 448 So.2d 984 (Fla.1984), and unlike those we disapproved in Fine and Evans v. Firestone, 457 So.2d 1351 (Fla.1984).

The academy argues that we should strictly scrutinize the proposed amendment and that sections one and two are not directly related and embrace both legislative and judicial functions, that they mix economic and non-economic subjects, and that they improperly permit legislative amendment of constitutional articles. The academy also argues that the severability clause in section three is not proper for a proposed amendment under the new advisory opinion procedure. The committee denies the academy's arguments.

We have carefully examined the text of the proposed amendment and conclude that it contains a single subject and directly connected matter. Although placing a cap on non-economic damages by legislative action may be unconstitutional as we found in Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507...