By Attorneys Blakely S. Moore and Kaytlin Keen
Claim splitting is a term used in civil litigation that refers to when a plaintiff “splits” one lawsuit into multiple lawsuits, thereby using the same cause of action to seek damages in different lawsuits. The doctrine was explained by Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal in Harllee v. Procacci, 154 So. 3d 1145, 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014):
The rule against splitting causes of action “‘requires that all damages sustained or accruing to one as a result of a single wrongful act must be claimed and recovered in one action or not at all.'” Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205, 1210-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Froman v. Kirland, 753 So. 2d 114, 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). But “under the rule against splitting a cause of action, a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit.” Gilbert v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 981 So. 2d 609, 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “The rule does not require the joinder of a cause of action that is not ‘available’ because it has not accrued with a cause of action that has accrued.” Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So. 3d 36, 47 n.7 (Fla. 2009).
What Does Claim Splitting Look Like?
Vanover v. NCO Fin. Servs., Inc., a case decided in the federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, provides a good illustration of the claim splitting doctrine, and the test that Florida courts apply to determine if claim splitting is underfoot. 857 F.3d 833, 841-42 (11th Cir. 2017).
In Vanover, the plaintiff sued the defendant in federal court for unlawful debt collection, alleged to have occurred between 2013 and 2014. While that first case was pending, she filed a second lawsuit in a Florida state court against the same defendant for unlawful collection attempts alleged to have occurred from 2010 to 2013. The defendant in the second lawsuit argued that the second claim was barred due to the claim splitting doctrine. The plaintiff responded that the cases were distinct because they involved separate alleged collection attempts over two distinct spans of time.
Applying a two-prong test for claim splitting, the district court judge in Vanover analyzed: “(1) whether the case involves the same parties and their privies, and (2) whether separate cases arise from the same transaction or series of transactions.” The district court concluded that both prongs were satisfied, and therefore claim splitting had occurred. Subsequently, the district court dismissed the second case, holding that the claims should have been raised initially in the first case. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that decision.
The takeaway here is that plaintiffs cannot sidestep claim preclusion by filing multiple lawsuits based on related conduct. If a claim exists at the time of the first suit, it must be raised then—or risk being barred.
Is Claim Splitting Permissible in Florida?
No, Florida does not allow claim splitting. See Tucker v. John Galt Ins. Agency Corp., 743 So. 2d 108 (4th DCA 1999) (holding that the rule against splitting causes of action makes it incumbent upon plaintiffs to raise all available claims involving the same circumstances in one action). This prohibition against claim splitting is referred to as the claim splitting doctrine.
Under Florida law, the claim-splitting doctrine ensures that plaintiffs cannot “split up his demand and prosecute it by piecemeal, or present only a portion of the grounds upon which relief is sought, and leave the rest to be presented in a second suit, if the first fails.” See 951 Harbor Drive, LLC v. SD Constr., LLC, 394 So. 3d 690 (3d DCA 2024) (citing Vanover v. NCO Fin. Servs., Inc., 857 F.3d 833, 841-42 (11th Cir. 2017). This rule against splitting causes of action is intricately linked to the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents the same issues from being litigated more than once.
The Purpose of the Claim-Splitting Doctrine
The rule against claim splitting serves the twin purposes of protecting against unnecessary delays and minimizing the costs associated with multiple lawsuits. By requiring all claims to be brought in a single lawsuit, this doctrine promotes judicial economy, reduces the burden on courts, and ensures that disputes are resolved as efficiently as possible.
Further, courts rely on the idea that litigation should have a sense of finality. If a party is allowed to split a cause of action, this could lead to prolonged legal battles with no clear end in sight. Florida courts have affirmed that multiple lawsuits arising out of a single incident would cause substantial delays and inefficiencies.
Applying the Claim-Splitting Doctrine
The crux of the claim-splitting doctrine is that a party cannot voluntarily drop a claim in the first lawsuit and then later pursue that same claim in a separate lawsuit. This rule is illustrated in case law, where the court held that if a claim is abandoned in an initial lawsuit, the plaintiff is precluded from reasserting it in a subsequent lawsuit. The doctrine ensures that once a party has chosen not to pursue a claim in a case, they cannot resurrect it later in a different legal proceeding.
What exactly a “claim” or “cause of action” is has been defined through case law, and has led to several perceived “exceptions” to the claim splitting doctrine. In applying the rule against splitting a cause of action, Florida’s adoption of a narrow view of a “cause of action” is illustrated by cases that bar a plaintiff from bringing separate suits for damages arising out of the same tort. Examples of illustrative case law include:
- DeCarlo v. Palm Beach Auto Brokers, Inc., 566 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that plaintiff’s suit for personal injuries arising from automobile accident was barred by uninsured motorist insurer’s subrogation lawsuit against same defendant).
- McKibben v. Zamora, 358 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (concluding that plaintiff had improperly split cause of action by filing separate negligence lawsuits seeking to recover damages to property and for personal injury).
- Unger v. Bergness, 172 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (holding that plaintiff was precluded from filing separate suits for injuries to his dog and for his dog’s death arising out the same attack by the defendant’s dog).
- Bowie v. Reynolds, 161 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (where the court did not apply a “same transaction” approach when it wrote that “[a]lthough it is the identical tortious act of appellant which caused the death of appellee’s wife and inflicted upon appellee personal injuries . . . and property damage . . . such act gave rise to two separate and distinct causes of action”).
Conclusion
Under Florida law, plaintiffs are required to bring all claims arising from a single set of facts in a single action to avoid prolonging litigation and imposing undue costs on the parties involved. While there are exceptions to this rule, the general principle of res judicata remains firmly in place to prevent duplicative litigation. Accordingly, the claim-splitting doctrine plays a vital role in ensuring that legal claims are handled efficiently and that the court system remains free from unnecessary, repetitive lawsuits.
For legal professionals, understanding the intricacies of the claim-splitting doctrine is crucial for effective case management and advising clients on how best to proceed in litigation. As Florida courts continue to refine the application of this doctrine, keeping up with relevant case law and judicial precedents will help to ensure that claims are litigated in the most efficient and effective manner possible.