“spoliation” of evidence, see Continental Ins. Co. v. Herman, 576 So.2d 313, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), we decline the Perezes’ invitation to further extend this implied exception to employer immunity. We reach this conclusion for three reasons. First, the purpose of a spoliation claim generally is not served by permitting suit where no notice is given. The genesis of the cause of action was the need to deter the recalcitrant defendant who attempts to unfairly deprive a plaintiff and court access to damning evidence. See Humana Worker’s Comp. v. Home Emergency Servs., 842 So.2d 778, 781 (Fla.2003)(“Negligent spoliation of evidence is a tort claim based on a defendant’s breach of a duty to preserve evidence.”); Lincoln Ins. Co. v. Home Emergency Servs., 812 So.2d 433, 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(<HOLDING>). In fact, barring the rare case where the
recognizing that the loss or destruction of evidence may seriously impair a partys ability to present its case recognizing cause of action recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium recognizing spoliation as an independent cause of action for negligence where a party is unable to prove its case due to the loss or destruction of key evidence recognizing the cause of action