Reynolds v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the plaintiff did not qualify for the Champion exception because she could not show that she had a familial relationship as well as an especially close emotional attachment to the decedent
• interpreting “close family member” requirement under Florida law as a bar to recovery for girlfriend-fiancee of victim
• describing the impact rule as \preclud[ing] the recovery of damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless the emotional distress arises directly from the physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the impact\
• describing the impact rule as \preclud[ing] the recovery of damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless the emotional distress arises directly from the physical injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the impact\
• “[T]he impact rule stands for the proposition that before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact.”
• woman who was injured in automobile accident could recover damages for emotional distress “flow[ing] from [her own] physical injuries . . . sustained in [the] impact” but not for emotional distress resulting from her fiancée’s death in the accident

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).