Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...*240 SUNDBERG, Justice. This cause is before us by virtue of a notice of appeal to review an order of the Circuit Court for Volusia County denying a motion for summary judgment. In denying the motion for summary judgment, the trial court held, inter alia, that Sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1971), were unconstitutional....

...hich is not a party to this litigation. Appellee filed a complaint for personal injury damages against appellant alleging that the latter had been negligent in the manner described. Appellant answered that it was immune from liability under Sections 440.10(1) [2] and 440.11(1), [3] Florida Statutes (1971), which were in effect on the date of the accident. In 1974, prior to the filing of the complaint in the instant action, Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1973), was amended by addition of the following sentence: "A subcontractor is not liable for the payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor on such contract work and is not protected by the exc...

...he law as of the time of the injury. Consequently, a subsequent enactment could not impair the substantive rights of the parties established by this contractual relationship... ." Appellee alternatively submits and the trial court held that Sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes, as they existed in 1972, were unconstitutional by virtue of recent case law....

...He argues there was no constitutional basis for immunity because no benefits ran from the glazier to the electrician's employee, and therefore there could have been no substitution of rights for the common law rights already in existence. This Court consistently upheld the constitutionality of Sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1975), prior to 1974, as granting immunity to subcontractors....

...anded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. It is so ordered. OVERTON, C.J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, HATCHETT and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents. NOTES [1] Walker & LaBerge, Inc. will be referred to below as appellant. [2] § 440.10(1), Fla....

...e the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment." [3] § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat., provides as follows: " Exclusiveness of liability. — The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tort-feasor and to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recove...

...on is an "employer" within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. If it is such an "employer", then it is liable for and is required to "secure the payment to [its] employees of the compensation payable under §§ 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16." Section 440.10, Florida Statutes 1953, same F.S.A. If it is an "employer", is it also a "contractor", within the meaning of Section 440.10, supra? If so, it is subject to the provisions of this section, as follows: "In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontr...

...If the Corporation was, in fact, liable for and required to secure compensation for Grinnell's and Burns' employees, then the Corporation is immune from suit by the plaintiff as a third-party tort-feasor, since Section 440.11 provides that "The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer * * *"; and if the plaintiff and Burns' employee were "engaged in the same contract work" under a "common employer", then Burns is immune *288 from suit by the plaintif...

...And, as heretofore noted, if there was no liability as an employer under the Act, there was no immunity from suit as a third-party tortfeasor. Nor can the Corporation be considered a "contractor," (and thus the "statutory" employer of Burns' and Grinnell's employees) within the meaning of Section 440.10 quoted supra, since the clear implication in this part of the Act is that there must be a contractual obligation on the part of the contractor, a portion of which he sublets to another....

...ined, and, again, as the present Court reiterated and re-emphasized in Smith v. Ussery, supra : "... . Nor can the Corporation be considered a `contractor,' (and thus the `statutory' employer of Burns' and Grinnell's employees) within the meaning of Section 440.10 quoted supra, since the clear implication in this part of the Act is that there must be a contractual obligation on the part of the contractor, a portion of which he sublets to another....

...Section 440.03, Florida Statutes (1987), states that every "employer" and "employee" as defined in section 440.02 shall be bound by the provisions of chapter 440. The definition of "employer" in section 440.02(12), Florida Statutes (1987), includes all political subdivisions of the state. Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1987), requires every employer coming within the provisions of the workers' compensation law to provide the compensation set forth therein....

...NOTES [*] The following opinion and judgment by Drew, J. (Ret.), prepared prior to his death on February 9, 1978, is hereby adopted as the opinion and judgment of this Court. [1] The pertinent language of Sec. 440.11 is as follows: "(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tortfeasor and to the employee, ......

...Appellees moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were immune from suit under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1977). The court granted their motions and entered summary judgment in their favor. This appeal ensued. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977) provides: The liability of an employer prescribed in section 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and everyone otherwise enti...

...e allowed to refile her Title VII claim. We will not remand it for her. On all counts, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . That section reads as follows: 440.11 Exclusiveness of Liability 1. The liability of an employer prescribed in section 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife ......

...The Florida Workmen's Compensation Act, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., contains no immunity provision similar to those in the New York, North Carolina, *799 and Virginia statutes, referred to above. It provides only that "The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer * * *", Section 440.11 (Emphasis supplied.); and it expressly preserves to an injured employee a concurrent remedy against a third party tort-feasor, without definition as to who is a "third party tort-feasor." Section 440.39 (1)....

...ause they do not work under the control of a common master." (Emphasis supplied.) The "rule under consideration" was the rule that a master is not liable to his servant for the negligence of a fellow servant. By the provision of the Act in question, Section 440.10, the Legislature, as stated, made "all of the employees engaged in a common enterprise statutory fellow servants", so that there was no longer any common-law liability on the part of the "different contractors engaged in a common emplo...

...It was obviously enacted to abrogate the effect of this Court's decision in Trail Builders Supply Co. v. Reagan (Fla. 1970), 235 So.2d 482. In essence, Chapter 71-190 amended existing Section 440.11, F.S. to provide: "that the liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tort-feasor and to the employee ......

...employee. In holding that the remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act was exclusive and in affirming the order of the lower court sustaining defendant's demurrer, this court said "* * * The intention of the legislature in amending Section 10(a) [Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, same F.S.A.] was to abrogate the common law to the extent of making all of the employees engaged in a common *842 enterprise statutory fellow servants....

...be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment." Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, same F.S.A....

...in the common enterprise, see Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., Inc., supra, it would appear that if such general contractor had failed to secure, either directly or indirectly, the payment of compensation for which such contractor is liable under Section 440.10(1), an injured employee of a subcontractor could elect to sue the general contractor for damages, and without the burden of having to meet the defenses of the fellow servant rule, contributory negligence, and the like....

...Reason did not have workers' compensation coverage and was dismissed from the suit after entering into a settlement with Roberts. Roberts argued that he was either an employee of Gator Freightways or a statutory employee of Gator Freightways pursuant to section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...tatutory employer. Id. at 58. For the reasons expressed by the district court, we agree that Roberts was not an employee of Gator Freightways. The primary issue before this Court is whether Gator Freightways was a statutory employer of Roberts under section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1985), which provides, in pertinent part: *1119 In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor o...

...Gator reasons that, if Florida Power and Light, because of its public utility status, and Pan American World Airways, because of its air common carrier responsibilities, are not statutory employers, then it, as a freight common carrier, is also exempt under section 440.10....

...In Florida Power and Light, an employee of a subcontractor which contracted with Florida Power and Light was injured while working with electrical equipment. There, the Third District Court of Appeal held that Florida Power and Light, because of its duty to serve the general public, was not a contractor within the meaning of section 440.10, and, consequently, was not a statutory employer. In Pan American World Airways, a baggage handler employed by a subcontractor of Pan American World Airways was injured on the job. The Third District Court of Appeal held that Pan American World Airways was not a statutory employer under section 440.10 because its primary obligation of transporting luggage was derived from statutory and common law requirements rather than from individual contracts....

...We expressly reject the exceptions created because the corporations have certain public responsibilities as either a common carrier or a public utility. In our view, there was no legislative intent or purpose to create such exceptions. The First District Court of Appeal correctly expressed the purpose of section 440.10, when it stated that the statute exists to insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking....

...We further agree with the district court that the legislative intent was to "insure that a person performing a contractor's work, even as an employee of a subcontractor, shall be entitled to workers' compensation protection with the primary employer if the subcontractor fails to provide such coverage." Id. Section 440.10 must be read in conjunction with the entire workers' compensation act, and any exceptions to this section must be established by the legislature, not the courts....

...Auchter Co. v. Luckie, 145 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 148 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1962). Accordingly, we approve in full the decision of the district court and hold that Gator Freightways was a statutory employer of Roland Roberts pursuant to section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...As discussed above, however, the Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to support this theory of liability. Margate raises the further argument that Vernon's negligence claims against it are barred by the Florida Workers' Compensation Act. See Fla.Stat. § 440.10 et seq....

...rty tort feasor with negligence which proximately caused the injuries suffered by him. It is the continuance of that action which Auchter now seeks to prohibit by the petition filed in this court. The pertinent statute which controls our decision is Section 440.10, F.S.A., which provides as follows: "(1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under §§ 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16....

...An employee of the roofing contractor was injured in the course of his employment and sought payment of workmen's compensation benefits from the owner on the theory that he was the general contractor and statutory employer of all persons engaged in the work within the purview of F.S. Section 440.10, F.S.A....

...Such a narrow interpretation does not seem to meet the legislative intent, nor does it appear to meet prior interpretations which have clearly stated that the purpose is to protect employees of irresponsible and uninsured subcontractors. [9] As stated in Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt [10] construing Section 440.10: "* * * It will be noted that it is not specifically provided that the liability of the contractor shall exist whether or not the subcontractor has the status of `independent contractor.' But we think it is fair to assume that such was...

...stence gives the work as a whole the character of a common job or employment." Numerous are the cases which have held that the immunities of the Law inure to those who accept the liabilities imposed therein. In my opinion Auchter is required by F.S. § 440.10, F.S.A., to secure workmen's compensation benefits to all employees of any employer to whom Auchter has sublet any part of the contractual obligation existing between Auchter and Sav-A-Stop, unless, of course, such compensation is otherwise secured....

...ceedings. Gilberto Revoredo was an employee of Lele Concrete and Pumping Company [Lele], a subcontractor hired to accomplish the pouring of concrete for a house being constructed for another person by Tomas Perez, the general contractor. Pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1989), [1] Revoredo was thus deemed to be employed by Perez, who was thus required to secure payment of Revoredo's workers' compensation if Lele did not....

...The Florida Supreme Court, in Motchkavitz v. L.C. Boggs Industries, Inc., 407 So.2d 910, 912 (Fla.1981), made it clear that subcontractors' employees, such as Revoredo, are employees of the contractor and are protected by the workers' compensation law, stating: "Section 440.10 establishes the concept of `statutory employer' for contractors who sublet part of their work to others. Section 440.11 provides that the liability established in 440.10 is `exclusive.' The effect of *892 section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor performing part of the work of a contractor fails to secure payment of compensation, the contractor is liable for same....

...tory employee of Perez because Perez did not secure payment of workers' compensation, and (2) thus Perez' liability for wrongful death is an obligation under common law, not under workers' compensation law. The estate is wrong on both counts. First, section 440.10(1) does not make the statutory employer-employee relationship contingent on the securing of workers' compensation for the employee....

...ed injuries to his business... employees." Griffin v. Speidel, 179 So.2d 569, 571 (Fla.1965). [3] The trial court, in its summary final judgment, took an entirely different position, concluding that Perez was not a "contractor" within the meaning of section 440.10(1) because he erected the scaffold for the house construction job under a separate contract with the landowner for whom he was building the house....

...cts with the landowner, they all merged into one total agreement to complete the total job. In other words, no matter how the job was sliced, it was the job, and Perez was the contractor. [4] Which reads: " The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to...

...Those cases are not on point as they involve actual employers rather than mere statutory employers. [6] As stated in Miami Herald Pub. v. Hatch, 617 So.2d 380, 384-385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(quoting Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc., 538 So.2d 55, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 550 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1989)): [t]he purpose of section 440.10 is to insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking.......

...He contends that the deputy commissioner erred in ruling that (1) no employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and the putative employer, Gator Freightways, Inc. (Gator), and that (2) Gator was not a statutory employer of claimant under the provisions of Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...evidence. We find no error in the deputy's ruling that claimant was an employee of Reason who, in turn, was an independent contractor vis-a-vis Gator. We now turn to claimant's second point on appeal that Gator was his statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...he time. Elder and the claimant had delivered a load of dog food to a store in Miami and were apparently on their way to pick up another load (although not for Shelton Trucking) when the accident occurred. This court held that Shelton Trucking was a section 440.10 statutory employer of the driver-claimant....

...n arose, not from the contract with the mall owner, but rather from Section 366.03, Florida Statutes, which imposed a duty on public utilities to serve the general public, and accordingly held that FP & L was not a "contractor" within the meaning of Section 440.10....

...Underwood, 502 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), in which the court followed the Brown case and Williams v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 448 So.2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In the latter case, Pan American World Airways was held not to be a "contractor" under section 440.10 because its "`primary obligation' in transporting their luggage arises not out of its countless individual contracts, that is, the tickets, with its passengers, but from generalized statutory and common law requirements that it do so....

...[citations omitted]" Id. at 69. We are unable to discern the logic and factual basis for creating a distinction between "common carriers" and "contract carriers" as the sole legal basis for exempting Gator Freightways from the status of a statutory contractor under section 440.10, as construed in Barrow v....

...needs of the customer. The court in Brown appears to have followed without question this court's opinion in State ex rel. Auchter Co. v. Luckie, 145 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 148 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1962), which limited the application of section 440.10 to building construction contracts....

...Judge Rawls's dissent in Luckie cogently points out that the court misinterpreted the supreme court's opinion in West v. Sampson, 145 So.2d at 243-46. But more importantly, this and other Florida appellate courts have declined to limit the application of section 440.10 to construction contracts for improvements to real property despite the Luckie opinion. For example, this court, applying section 440.10, held that a trucking company that had leased a truck was the statutory employer of the driver of the truck....

...ods for that third person); Southern Sanitation v. DeBrosse, 463 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (garbage disposal company held to be a statutory employer *60 of an employee of company hired to haul cover dirt to its sanitary landfill). The purpose of section 440.10 is to insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking. To construe section 440.10 as argued by Gator would afford many common carriers a convenient loophole through which to avoid the requirement of workers' compensation coverage on many drivers delivering loads pursuant to the carrier's contracts with its customers....

...The carriers could simply delegate responsibility for workers' compensation coverage to small "independent contractors" who routinely do not comply with the carrier's contractual stipulation to provide such coverage because they do not employ three or more employees, [4] as in this case. We conclude that section 440.10 must be read in pari materia with the entire workers' compensation act....

...Thus, irrespective of whether claimant was transporting goods for Gator covered by the bill of lading pursuant to an oral or written contract of hire or merely a contract implied by law, Gator should be treated legally as a statutory contractor under section 440.10. Such a construction of section 440.10 comports with our decision in Barrow v....

...I concur with the portion of the majority opinion affirming the deputy commissioner's ruling that no employer-employee relationship existed between claimant and Gator. However, I do not agree to the reversal of the deputy's finding that Gator was not a statutory employer of claimant under Section 440.10, Florida Statutes....

...(Creech settled with Cespedes prior to trial and is not a party to this appeal.) The trial focused on which one of two houses being constructed simultaneously was the site of the accident. The location of the accident was significant in that Cadillac was a statutory "contractor" as defined in section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1979) [1] on the one home it was constructing for an owner....

...in the amount of $750,000. Cadillac raises three issues which deserve discussion. Firstly, Cadillac contends that it is a general contractor, and thus, a statutory "employer" immune from suit by the employee of a subcontractor, pursuant to sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979); secondly, that if it is considered to be an owner it is not liable for Cespedes' injuries as it did not participate in the daily activities of the construction; and thirdly, that it was reversible error to...

...s not a statutory "contractor" pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Under Florida worker's compensation law, employers who provide worker's compensation benefits are immune from tort suit by employees injured in the course of their employment. § 440.10, Fla....

...ef upon learning of the default. Id. at 1347. Therefore the order granting the motion to set aside the default entered against Statewide was correct. For the foregoing reasons, the orders and final judgment appealed are affirmed. Affirmed. NOTES [1] Section 440.10(1) establishes the employer's liability for payment of worker's compensation and provides in pertinent part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor ......

...all be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment... . [2] 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability. — (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to ......

...The facts are not in conflict and under the circumstances the question presented is one of law. Bossom v. Gillman, 1915, 70 Fla. 310, 70 So. 364; Nelson v. Montgomery Ward & Company, 312 U.S. 373, 61 S.Ct. 593, 85 L.Ed. 897. Liberally sprinkled through § 440.10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act are the words "contractor" and "subcontractor." Yet the act itself does not favor us with any definition of these terms....

...*591 The decision of the district court is approved. Goldberg v. Context Industries, Inc . is disapproved. It is so ordered. ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD and OVERTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. [2] Gulfstream's counsel acknowledged that § 440.10, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1974), did not apply. Because there is no provision like § 440.10 relating to the parent/subsidiary relationship, that relationship is not analogous to the contractor/subcontractor relationship covered by § 440.10....

...Zuckerman-Vernon also appealed the judgment in favor of its co-defendant, based upon its adverse effect on Zuckerman-Vernon's right to contribution in case a judgment were eventually rendered against Zuckerman-Vernon. The district court of appeal affirmed, holding that sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1971), precluded an action to recover for injuries sustained on the job by the employee of a contractor against his employer's subcontractor....

...The district court framed the certified question as follows: Can the employee of a "contractor," having received workmen's compensation benefits from his employer, sue his employer's subcontractor for damages arising *912 out of the negligence of the latter's employee? Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1971), requires every employer brought within the provisions of chapter 440 to secure the payment of compensation to its employees as provided for by the statute....

...ntractor for purposes of the statutorily required coverage and liability. "[T]he contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment." § 440.10(1), Fla. Stat. (1971). [1] Section 440.11(1) provides that the liability of an employer as prescribed in section 440.10(1) "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tortfeasor and to the employee" and to any others damaged by the injury or death....

...The statute also provides that when an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required, the injured employee or his representative may elect to claim statutory compensation or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of the injury or death. [2] Section 440.10 establishes the concept of "statutory employer" for contractors who sublet part of their work to others. Section 440.11 provides that the liability established in section 440.10 is "exclusive." The effect of section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor performing part of the work of a contractor fails to secure payment of compensation, the contractor is liable for same....

...ll prepare for or insure against its contingent liability as "statutory employer" in case the subcontractor fails to do so. The exclusiveness of liability provided for by section 440.11 extends to an employer's "liability" as defined in section *913 440.10....

...denied, 148 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1962). We therefore reject petitioner's contention. Petitioner also contends that chapter 74-197, Laws of Florida, overruled the Younger-Carter rationale of reciprocal immunity in the statutory common employment situation. This amendment to section 440.10 disclaimed the intent to make subcontractors liable for securing coverage for each others' employees, and correspondingly abrogated their immunity from suit by each others' employees....

...It is so ordered. OVERTON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur. SUNDBERG, C.J., dissents with an opinion, with which ADKINS, J., concurs. SUNDBERG, Chief Justice, dissenting. Since the result reached by the majority, in my mind, is neither compelled by sections 440.10-.11, Florida Statutes (1971), nor supported in logic under the circumstances of a case such as this, I would recede from Younger v....

...Professor Larson, the preeminent authority on the law of Workmen's Compensation, has been particularly critical of Florida's "common-employment" metaphor as being out of the mainstream of the law on this subject. [*] I agree with Professor Larson. Hence, I must respectfully dissent. ADKINS, J., concurs. NOTES [1] 440.10 Liability for compensation....

...bcontractor who has secured such payment. (2) Compensation shall be payable irrespective of fault as a cause for the injury, except as provided in § 440.09(3). [2] 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability. — (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tortfeasor and to the employee, his dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiral...

...We answer this question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court on this issue. The opinion of the district court correctly recites our past holdings relative to immunity in this area of the law and we need not repeat them. Suffice it to say that the 1974 amendment to section 440.10, Florida Statutes, which authorizes suit by an employee of a subcontractor against another subcontractor for injuries occurring on a *954 common job, modifies the common employment premise of our earlier holdings such as Younger v....

...Chapter 74-197 expressly abrogates the statutory immunity in suits by a subcontractor's employee against another subcontractor, but did not abrogate the statutory immunity in suits by employees of general contractors against subcontractors of the general contractor. The 1974 amendment added the following language to section 440.10: A subcontractor is not liable for the payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor on such contract work and is not protected by the exclusiveness of liability provisions of s. 440.11 from action at law or in admiralty on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor. This change amounted to a minor, specifically limited addition to the statute. The amendment did not alter in any way the language of section 440.10 upon which this Court premised its decision in Younger v....

...ts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment... . § 440.10, Fla....

...establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Fla. Stat. § 440.10(1). The Florida Supreme Court has explained that the “effect of section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor performing part of the work of a contractor fails to secure payment of compensation, the contractor is liable for same.” Motchkavitz v....

...established through the course of conduct by Anchorage and Team Fritz, and by the Owner/Contractor Agreement, in which Anchorage “assumed the legal position of general contractor for the job.” Orama, 552 So. 2d at 925–26 (rejecting general contractor’s argument that Section 440.10(1) did not apply because he did not enter into written contract with subcontractor)....

...The recognized theory adopted as applying, was that which limits employees working "under a common employer in a common enterprise ("statutory fellow servants") to the exclusive remedy of workmen's compensation under Fla. Stat. § 440.11, F.S.A. The "common employer" section of the statute is set forth in § 440.10(1), [1] and has been correctly used in *165 Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co....

...And, as heretofore noted, if there was no liability as an employer under the Act, there was no immunity from suit as a third-party tortfeasor. Nor can the Corporation [owner] be considered a `contractor,' (and thus the `statutory' employer of Burns' and Grinnell's employees) within the meaning of Section 440.10 quoted supra, since the clear implication in this part of the Act is that there must be a contractual obligation on the part of the contractor, a portion of which he sublets to another....

...n to perform work by such alleged subcontractors was with the owner or its agent and where the true relationship of contractor and "subs" does not exist; for that is the very predicate for the exclusion expressly set forth in the statutory provision § 440.10(1)....

...r" in the initial cases cited. Under these circumstances there is no "common employer" and the necessary predicate is not present to invoke the workmen's compensation exclusive remedy which the trial court and district court allowed under Fla. Stat. § 440.10(1)....

...The Employer ("Herald Publishing") and Carrier ("E/C") appealed an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims ("JCC") finding Herald Publishing is the statutory employer of the Claimants, Ralph and Charlotte Hatch, and awarding medical and workers' compensation benefits and taxable costs. We affirm. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1989 & 1991)....

...Herald Publishing filed a notice of denial, maintaining that it did not employ Claimants nor was it their statutory employer. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the JCC correctly found Herald Publishing to be Claimants' statutory employer. Our inquiry begins with section 440.10, the 1989 and 1991 versions of which cover the accidents of Ralph Hatch and Charlotte Hatch, respectively. Aside from an insignificant division of the statute in 1991 into subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b), the pertinent language is exactly the same in both versions. Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent part: (1)(a) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, ......

...The parties' stipulation demonstrates to us a proper basis on which the JCC found those advertising contracts are the source of the contractual obligation at issue here. In Roberts, 538 So.2d at 57, we held that to be regarded as a "contractor" under the statutory employer provisions of section 440.10(1), "the company's primary obligation in performing a job or providing a service must arise out of a contract." (Emphasis in original.) See Southern Sanitation v....

...Thus, Herald Publishing meets the statutory classification of "contractor." Having determined the Employer is a statutory contractor, we next must ascertain whether Herald Publishing "has passed on to another an obligation under the contract for which the person so subletting is primarily obligated," as contemplated in section 440.10(1)(b)....

...National Airlines, Inc., 217 So.2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (affirming statutory employer status of airline with federal contract to carry mail, where airline's obligation to load and unload mail was sublet to dispatch service whose employee was injured). The E/C urged the JCC to construe section 440.10(1)(b) so as to concentrate on the individual specific means of fulfilling the contractual obligation, rather than on the general obligation itself....

...mary obligation under a contractual agreement with advertisers because a substantial portion of the total obligation is fulfilled by several other methods of distribution. The JCC considered and rejected the E/C's construction of the statute. First, section 440.10(1)(b) contemplates those situations where "any part or parts" of a contractor's work are sublet to one or more subcontractors. In Motchkavitz, the supreme court said "[t]he effect of section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor performing part of the work of a contractor fails to secure payment of compensation, the contractor is liable for same." 407 So.2d at 912. (Emphasis added.) In accordance with our approach in Roberts, we have read section 440.10 in pari materia with the entire workers' compensation act and conclude: The purpose of section 440.10 is to insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking......

...[T]he obvious legislative intent [is] to insure that a person performing a contractor's work, even as an employee of a subcontractor, *385 shall be entitled to workers' compensation protection with the primary employer if the subcontractor fails to provide such coverage. 538 So.2d at 60. The interpretation of section 440.10(1)(b) argued by the E/C is contrary both to the compelling public policy underlying the statute and to our understanding of the decisional law construing the statutory employer doctrine....

...The negligence alleged is that the defendant by its employees negligently operated the crane. The controlling question is whether the defendant, Poston, is a third party against whom an independent action can be maintained under the Workman's Compensation Act. In this connection it is necessary to refer to section 440.10(1) Fla....

...Stat., F.S.A., makes workman's compensation the exclusive remedy in such cases. The appellant urges that in order to apply section 440.11, supra, and thereupon find that workman's compensation was the exclusive remedy, the trial judge was required to find that Poston, who lent the men and equipment, was a subcontractor under section 440.10(1), supra....

...tly operated. In the last cited case the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed the statement of law contained in Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., Inc., 143 Fla. 335, 196 So. 690, 693, that "The intention of the legislature in amending section 10(a) [section 440.10(1) Fla....

...This question should be answered in the affirmative. ERVIN, C.J., and ROBERTS, THORNAL and CARLTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Urda v. Pan American World Airways, 211 F.2d 713 (5th Cir.1954). [2] 440.11 EXCLUSIVENESS OF LIABILITY — The liability of an employer prescribe in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death * * *....

...express or implied, oral or written * * * including minors whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, * * *." (Emphasis added.) Section 440.11, Workmen's Compensation Act, relative to liability of employer: "The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, * * *." Section 440.54, Workmen's Compensation Act, relative to additional compensation to minors e...

...st them is barred because they had secured the payment of workmen's compensation benefits as required by law, is based upon the provisions of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which are as follows: "The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law...

...In such action the defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by negligence of a fellow servant, nor that the employee assumed the risk of his employment, nor that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee." Another statutory provision, the second sentence in paragraph (1) of Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., also seems pertinent to the present consideration....

...Boult and Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Tampa, for appellee. DREW, Justice. This appeal controverts a summary judgment entered in the circuit court for the appellee, defendant in a negligence action, construing constitutional provisions detailed *26 below and sustaining the validity of F.S. Sections 440.10, 440.11, F.S.A....

...The record indicates no controversy over the providing of compensation benefits for the injury in question. On the basis of previous decisions [2] the court entered summary judgment for defendant because of immunity under the provision of Sec. 440.11, supra, that "[t]he liability of an employer prescribed in Sec. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee * * *." Appellant contends first that the court in the cases of Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal v....

...yer" and is not a "third person" against whom an action for damages may be maintained. [4] Upon reconsideration of the language of the act and the reasoning of the cited cases, we find no ground for departure from that precedent. The provision, Sec. 440.10, supra, that all employees on such contract *27 work "shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business" is most reasonably construed to make statutory fellow servants of all of the employees engaged in a common enterprise under the general contractor as statutory employer....

...lity for compensation. Related provisions of the law, such as Sec. 440.39, supra, contain no definition requiring or permitting classification of the appellee in this cause as a third party tortfeasor. The common employment doctrine embodied in Sec. 440.10, supra, was given thorough consideration in our earlier opinion, supra, concluding that in the case of subcontractors under a general contractor the statute creates a single statutory employer to provide uniform compensation coverage for "all...

...440.11, supra, is "exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee" upon compliance with the conditions of the act. This provision alone serves to distinguish between employer immunity under the act and the problem of employee liability treated in McBee. Sec. 440.10 of the statute, as above noted, identifies the general contractor together with his subcontractors as a common employer whose liability for compensation may be met by either party....

...ed on joint control of the common enterprise, lend support to our conclusion here. [9] Affirmed. THORNAL, C.J., and THOMAS, O'CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur. ROBERTS and ERVIN, JJ., dissent. NOTES [1] Art. V, Sec. 4, Fla. Const., F.S.A. F.S. Sec. 440.10, F.S.A.: "Liability for compensation (1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for and shall secure the payments to his employees of the compensation payable under §§ 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16....

...be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment." F.S. Sec. 440.11, F.S.A.: "Exclusiveness of liability The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, * * * on account of such injury or death, except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter an injured emp...

...Finding that the Inn had an "obligation to its patrons to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment... [and] that the obligation was sublet to Wells Fargo," the trial court entered summary judgment on the sole basis that the Inn was the statutory employer of Rabon pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b) and, thus, was immune from civil liability to Rabon by virtue of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991). We conclude that the subcontracting of a hotel's common law duty to provide safe premises for its guests is not a basis for the creation of statutory employer status under section 440.10(1)(b)....

...ress or implied *1128 in fact, existed between the Inn and its guests. Because there is no evidence of such a contractual obligation sublet to Wells Fargo, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on statutory employer immunity under section 440.10(1)(b)....

...tled to immunity under chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as Rabon's statutory employer. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of the Inn, ruling that the Inn was immune from civil liability as Rabon's statutory employer under sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes....

...In its order granting summary judgment the trial court found, in pertinent part, as follows: 1.... Defendant contends that it is immune from civil liability to the plaintiff by virtue of section 440.11 et seq., Florida Statutes, as it was the statutory employer of plaintiff, pursuant to section 440.10, Florida Statutes, at the time of the incident described in the Complaint....

...curred a contractual obligation to a third party, such as its hotel patrons, (2) a part of which obligation defendant had sublet to plaintiff's employer, Wells Fargo. 2. Regarding the first prong, as reflected in the case law construing and applying section 440.10, Florida Statutes, the "contractual obligation" which has been sublet out to another need not be an express provision contained in a written contract.......

...Consequently, with respect to defendant's obligation to its patrons to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment, the Court finds that the obligation was sublet to Wells Fargo, and certainly was so after midnight at the Holiday Inn. (Citations omitted). This appeal followed. Statutory Employer under Section 440.10 Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent part: (1)(a) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter ......

...r shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Section 440.11(1) provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee..., except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employe...

...e death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this chapter or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of such injury or death ... To be included within the definition of "statutory employer" under section 440.10, the Inn must show that it was engaged in performing "contract work" for its hotel patrons and that it sublet a part of the contract work to Wells Fargo, whose employee, Rabon, was injured....

...ts that its premises are in a reasonably safe condition, citing Rubey v. William Morris, Inc., 66 So.2d 218, 221 (Fla.1953), and that the subcontracting of this implied contractual obligation will invoke the statutory employer provisions of sections 440.10 and 440.11, citing Antinarelli, 642 So.2d at 663, and Delta Air Lines, Inc., 658 So.2d at 557....

...Thus, Rabon argues that, since the duty to provide safe premises is a duty imposed by the common law and not a contract, the Inn did not subcontract "contract work" to Wells Fargo and could not be a "statutory employer" immune from suit under sections 440.10 and 440.11....

...Service of Florida, Inc., 281 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 287 So.2d 95 (Fla.1973). Duty Implied in Law is Not "Contract Work" We agree with Rabon that because "contract work" must be sublet to form the basis for statutory employer immunity under section 440.10(1)(b), the statute requires that the contractor must sublet an obligation that is a part of a contract, express or implied in fact, and not an obligation purely imposed by statutory or common law. Woods v. Carpet Restorations, Inc., 611 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Although neither party has directed us to a Florida case directly addressing the issue raised here, we read the language of section 440.10(1)(b) as an expression of legislative intent that the sublet work must be an obligation included within a promissory agreement between the contractor and a third party. By its own terms, the statute applies only "[i]n case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors ...." § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...Clearly, the legislature could have granted a broader statutory employer immunity by creating statutory employer status in any circumstance in which a business engages a subcontractor to perform a part of the business' regular trade or work. [1] The language of *1131 subsection 440.10(1)(b), however, is expressly limited to circumstances in which a contractor sublets performance of a contractual obligation that it owes to a third party....

...of a purely statutory duty, it cannot arise out of the subcontracting of a duty created by the common law. Our holding here is also based in part on the differences between contracts implied in fact and contracts implied in law. For the purposes of section 440.10(1)(b), we find no difference in the legal effect of an express contract and a contract implied in fact....

...red contracts at all, but a form of the remedy of restitution. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 4, cmt. b. Based upon the above distinctions between duties imposed in law and duties arising out of a contract and upon the clear language of subsection 440.10(1)(b), we conclude that a duty implied in law or a "quasicontract" cannot form the basis for a statutory employment relationship. Instead, sections 440.10(1)(b) and 440.11 contemplate a true contract between the contractor and a third party—either express or implied in fact....

...xchange for the employee relinquishing his or her right to seek common law recovery from the employer for those injuries. The obligation of an employer to provide workers' compensation benefits to employees at the time material here was presented in section 440.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), which provided, *90 "Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter ......

...shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment to his or her employees ... of the compensation payable [under this chapter]." In return for compliance with this requirement, section 440.11(1) provided, "The liability of an employer prescribed in s[ection] 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer ......

...statutory immunity provided by section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2000)." Id. at 468 (emphasis added). Nowhere in the decision below, either in the majority or the dissent, does Aguilera address the applicability of section 440.37 (or its successor, section 440.105) to the employee's claim....

...ageous and resulted in injuries separate and distinct from the work related injury [n. 3]. We disagree. [N. 2] If a carrier "lies" regarding available benefits, such statements constitute a criminal offense and subject the carrier to penalties under section 440.105, Florida Statutes (2000). The Department of Insurance is authorized to revoke or suspend the authority of a workers' compensation carrier for violation of Section 440.105. See § 440.106(3), Fla....

...e investigation and litigation expenses, including attorney's fees at the trial and appellate courts. § 440.37(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1989). Section 440.37 was repealed in 1993. See ch. 93-415, § 109, Laws of Fla. In its place, the Legislature enacted section 440.105, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994)....

...This statute, passed in 1990, provides that "[t]he workers' compensation system in Florida is based on a mutual renunciation of common-law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike." § 440.015, Fla. Stat. (2000). [12] As noted in footnote 7, section 440.37 was replaced in 1993 by section 440.105. However, section 440.105 is never discussed by the Third District below or the majority of this Court.

...Accordingly, the final summary judgment and orders on attorney's fees are reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. NOTES [1] "440.11 Exclusiveness of liability "(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tort-feasor and to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recove...

...On the basis of these allegations, the trial court in the final judgment appealed from, stated: "* * * In this case, Plaintiff was under direction of Defendant and Workmen's Compensation Law is exclusive. "This action is dismissed and Defendant go hence without day * * *." F.S. 1967, Section 440.10, F.S.A....

...We hold in this case that a condominium association which, in performing its statutory duty to manage and maintain the condominium property, enters into a contract with a professional company to perform certain of those duties, is not a statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), such as to confer upon the condominium association immunity from suit by an injured employee of the contractor....

...The concept of statutory employer, for worker's compensation purposes, is that a contractor who sublets all or any part of its contract work is the employer not only of its own employees but also of the employees of any subcontractor to whom all or any part of the principal contract has been sublet. § 440.10(1), Fla....

...Rather, we think that case reemphasized the need for there to be an obligation to perform a contract. The holding in that case simply made clear that an entity which has a contract to perform, all or part of which is sublet to another, is not exempt from being a statutory employer under section 440.10 Florida Statutes merely because the service which it had contracted to furnish is regulated to some extent by statute....

...ot do for themselves. The association fulfills its purpose, not because it has contracted to do so, but because by statute it is obligated to do so. Appellee argues that Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts , recognizes that the legislative purpose of section 440.10 is "to insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it ..." and as thus applied to the instant case, condominium associations should be viewed as a part of the "property m...

...Mills, 374 So.2d 599, 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Holding that appellees are immune from liability as a matter of law, we affirm the trial court's decision. Workmen's compensation statutes provide employers immunity from liability for negligent conduct. § 440.10, Fla....

...440.11 from action at law or in admiralty on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor. (2) Compensation shall be payable irrespective of fault as a cause for the injury, except as provided in s. 440.09(3). [2] Exclusiveness of liability. — (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tort-feasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled t...

...llant Vicki *161 Brown was not intended by the legislature to be subjected to the act's protections. The exclusivity provisions of section 440.11(1), insofar as they are material to the case at bar, state: "The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, ... and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages ... on account of such injury or death... ." (e.s.) Section 440.10 places on the employer the responsibility for furnishing compensation benefits to the employee, as provided under sections 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16 of the act....

...Brown's claims were derivative only for loss of consortium. See Gates v. Foley, 247 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1971); Gold v. Cheker Oil Company, 438 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). [2] 440.11 Exclusiveness of Liability (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife ......

...ert E. Hamilton, individually and for the use and benefit of Transamerica Insurance Company, is affirmed. Affirmed. WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] F.S. 440.11, F.S.A. Exclusiveness of liability. — The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law...

...In a workers' compensation immunity case, the employer and fellow employees are generally entitled to invoke the exclusiveness of workers' compensation liability under section 440.11 so long as the employer has provided the benefits required under section 440.10, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990). Rarely does a lawsuit involve a dispute over whether a defendant was the employer or whether the benefits under section 440.10 were provided....

...Section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provides that "[t]he employer shall pay compensation or furnish benefits ... if the employee suffers an accidental injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment." (Emphasis supplied.) Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (2001), sets forth the employer's liability for compensation and section 440.11(1) provides that this liability is "exclusive and in place of all other liability" as to third-party tortfeasors and employees, save for certain legislatively created exceptions....

...his life outside employment. Acker v. Charles R. Burklew Constr., 654 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Work connection determines coverage under chapter 440, not fault. Compensation "shall be payable irrespective of fault as a cause for the injury." § 440.10(2), Fla....

...In moving for summary judgment, Fawcett argued that it was immune from liability pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act either as Derogatis's special employer under the borrowed employee doctrine, § 440.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2000), [1] or as her statutory employer, § 440.10(1)(b)....

...An *1083 employee so engaged by the employer shall be considered a borrowed employee of the employer, and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer. The employer shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such borrowed employees as required in s. 440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help supply services company....

...y forecloses summary judgment in its favor under the statutory special employment theory. Consequently, we need not reach the issue of whether Derogatis was acting in furtherance of her employment at the time she was injured. B. Statutory Employment Section 440.10(1)(b) provides as follows: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such con...

...ishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. In order for Fawcett to be considered a contractor pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), its "`primary obligation in performing a job or providing a service must arise out of a contract.'" Sotomayor v....

...se final judgment based on a jury verdict finding it liable for $875,000.00 in a personal injury action. The major point raised by appellant is that the plaintiff's action against it should have been barred due to the provisions of *559 Fla. Stat. §§ 440.10 and 440.11, [1] F.S.A., providing plaintiff with the exclusive remedy for his claim by way of workmen's compensation....

...No issue is raised by appellant as to the priopriety of the verdict or the negligence of the company. Argument is directed to the status of F.P.L. and its alleged immunity from liability since appellee's exclusive remedy was allegedly under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and specifically provided for in §§ 440.10 and 440.11, Fla....

...atutes. The court stated: "In West v. Sampson [4] our Supreme Court indicated, if it did not specifically so hold, that the type of contractual obligation by which one must be bound in order to be held a contractor within the meaning of the statute [§ 440.10, Fla....

...[5] We have considered the remaining point raised by appellant and have found it to be without merit. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited and discussed, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. NOTES [1] § 440.10, Fla....

...ecure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat., F.S.A., provides: "Exclusiveness of liability. — "(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tort-feasor and to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recove...

...coverage and a contractor's immunity inures to his subcontractors. [6] The mere leasing of equipment or the mere sale and delivery of materials to a general contractor would not grant the privilege of exclusive remedy to the lessor or vendor because § 440.10 does not impose upon a general contractor the duty to secure compensation to employees of lessors or vendors even though a vendor may render some services or labor in delivering materials to the job site. The word "subcontractor" is not defined in the Act, but § 440.10, F.S.A., provides: "In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be...

...It matters not that Safway's employees were responsible only to Safway since Safway was liable under its contract to Southwestern. Both plaintiff's decedent and Safway's employees had a "common *43 employer" and were engaged in work under the same prime contract. By virtue of § 440.10 they were statutory fellow servants....

...bligation of the News & Sun Sentinel. Therefore, the holding of Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts, 550 So.2d 1117, [sic] (Fla. 1989), is unavailing in this instance since the News & Sun Sentinel is not a contractor as defined in that decision or in Section 440.10, Florida Statutes.

...However, we are unable to conclude that competent substantial evidence supports the finding of no statutory employment relationship. In fact, the record clearly demonstrates that Hotel assumed and then delegated certain primary contractual obligations so as to establish itself as Claimant's statutory employer for purposes of section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...In fact, however, the restaurant did not have any workers' compensation coverage on the date of Claimant's industrial accident. Under those circumstances, a question arose as to whether or not Claimant could demonstrate a statutory employment relationship with Hotel pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b)....

...1st DCA 1993) (reversal of finding of statutory employment absent evidence that city was obligated to perform federally-funded, city-administered home repairs in the course of which claimant/carpenter was injured). In Orama, we stated that "the very purpose of section 440.10 is to assure that a general contractor will retain financial responsibility for injuries to those employees working a contract job, even though an independent contractor performs part or all of the undertaking." 552 So.2d at 926; Belford Trucking Co....

...773, 1 So.2d 858 (1941), and the Florida Supreme Court in Motchkavitz declined to recognize the claimant's argument based on an attempt to distinguish between independent and general contractors. 407 So.2d at 914. In summary, we believe that our holding comports with the legislative intent in section 440.10, Florida Statutes, that a person like Claimant, performing a contractor's work, even as an employee of a subcontractor "engaged on such contract work," be entitled to workers' compensation protection with the primary employer in those instances where the subcontractor has not provided coverage....

...Knight et al., 117 So.2d 740, upon an alleged conflict with a decision of the District Court, Third District, in the case of Shirey v. Thompson et al., Fla.App., 115 So.2d 203, certiorari denied. Both decisions involve a dispute as to liability for workmen's compensation under Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., reading as follows: "Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter * * * shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under § 440.13 * * *....

...express refusal in that case to resolve an alleged conflict as to whether claimant's immediate employers were in fact subcontractors or were themselves employees of the first subcontractor against whom the award was made. The statute in controversy, Section 440.10(1), was therefore necessarily, and expressly, construed as prescribing a rule of law opposite to that announced in the opinion of the court in the case at bar....

...Under this interpretation, it is clear that the provision of the Florida Statute that "the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment", Sec. 440.10(1), Fla....

...and foist on the principal contractor a responsibility not contemplated by the Compensation Act and out of all proportion to reasonable requirements." We agree with the statement in the decision here reviewed that "It is manifest that the purpose of Section 440.10(1) is to protect employees of irresponsibile and uninsured subcontractors by imposing ultimate liability on the general contractor who has it within his power to insist upon adequate compensation protection for employees of his subcontractors." [117 So.2d 743]....

...In December 2008, Sky Chefs and Ms. Derosins moved for summary judgment arguing that Sky Chefs, as a subcontractor of American Airlines (the general contractor), along with Ms. Derosins its employee, were immune from tort liability under the 2001 version of sections 440.10(1) and 440.11 of the Florida Statutes, which were in effect at the time Mr....

...Ramcharitar was injured. These provisions of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law afforded certain *96 tort immunity to subcontractors where the contractor provided workers' compensation coverage for the employees of both the contractor and its subcontractors. See §§ 440.10(1) and 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2001). [1] Summary judgment was granted. We reverse this final judgment because the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So.2d 953 (Fla.1983), which interprets this version of section 440.10, mandates this result....

...actor on such contract work and is not protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 from action at law or in admiralty on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor. See Ch. 74-197, § 6, at 546, Laws of Fla.; § 440.10(1), Fla....

...om actions brought by a contractor's employees as recognized in Carter and Younger. However, in 1983, the Florida Supreme Court decided Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So.2d 953 (Fla.1983), in which it held that the 1974 amendment to section 440.10 modified the "common employment premise" set forth in Younger and Carter, so that subcontractors were no longer immune from suit by a contractor's employee (eliminating vertical immunity), even if that employee had received workers' co...

...[W]e recede from Younger ..., thus allowing a third-party action against one who has no duty to afford compensation benefits. Abernathy, 442 So.2d at 954 (citations omitted). This interpretation of the 1974 amendment to the workers' compensation law, section 440.10, remained in effect for the next twenty years....

...5th DCA 1995) (citing Abernathy and finding that "[i]t is now well established under Florida law that a subcontractor or independent contractor can be liable in tort for injuries sustained by the employees of a general contractor on a construction site"). In 2003, the Florida Legislature amended section 440.10 to restore subcontractor immunity from tort claims brought by either a general contractor or another subcontractor's employee (vertical and horizontal immunity): A subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on th...

...Ramcharitar was injured, prevailing Supreme Court precedent provided no immunity to subcontractors sued by their contractor's employees for workplace injuries. Sky Chefs and Ms. Derosins are also not immune from suit by virtue of the 2003 amendment to section 440.10 because it does not apply retroactively....

...News-Journal Corp., 784 So.2d 438, 441 (Fla.2001) (finding it unnecessary to determine whether the retroactive application of a statute was constitutional because the statute did not "set forth the clear legislative intent" that it be applied retroactively). To this end, we find that while the 2003 amendment to section 440.10 effectively abrogated Abernathy with respect to vertical immunity for a subcontractor, there is no clear legislative intent that the amendment be applied retroactively. Neither the language of section 440.10 nor the enacting legislation evinces such intent. On the contrary, the enacting legislation expressly provided that the revisions to section 440.10 were to become effective on January 1, 2004, see Ch....

...addressed in this legislation. See Ch. 2003-412, § 50, at 3969, Laws of Fla. ("Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall take effect October 1, 2003."). The inclusion of this effective date rebuts the suggestion that the 2003 revision of section 440.10 was intended to apply retroactively....

...ive intent was before an intervening Supreme Court of Florida case, [the court] can apply that legislative change retroactively without doing violence to the constitution or to the Florida Supreme Court." We disagree, given that the 2003 revision to section 440.10 occurred twenty years after the Court decided Abernathy and some twenty-nine years after the 1974 amendment to section 440.10....

...mm'n v. Cooper, 701 So.2d 543, 544-45 (Fla.1997) ("[I]t is inappropriate to use an amendment enacted ten years after the original enactment to clarify original legislative intent."). Having found no clear legislative intent that the 2003 revision of 440.10 be applied retroactively, it is unnecessary to determine if the retroactive application of the statute would be constitutional....

...only while procedural or remedial statutes are presumed to operate retrospectively."). We disagree, as the Florida Supreme Court has rejected an almost identical argument on a sufficiently analogous set of facts with respect to the 1974 amendment to section 440.10. See *100 Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239 (Fla.1977). In Halligan, the plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured due to the alleged negligence of another subcontractor's employee on the jobsite. Under the version of section 440.10 in effect at the time of the injury, see § 440.10, Fla. Stat. (1971), the defendant subcontractor had horizontal immunity from a negligence action by the plaintiff. However, after the Legislature amended section 440.10 in 1974 to eliminate a subcontractor's horizontal immunity, the plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendant subcontractor....

...ual relationship." Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Mayo, 121 So.2d 424, 428 (Fla.1960)). [2] The 2003 amendment, being substantive, does not apply retroactively. Accordingly, because Sky Chefs and Ms. Derosins were not immune from suit under the version of section 440.10 in effect at the time of Mr....

...e intent that the 2003 revision of the statute be applied retroactively to this case; and because the 2003 revision is not remedial, summary judgment should not have been entered in their favor. The order on review is, therefore, reversed. NOTES [1] Section 440.10(1) of the Florida Statutes (2001) provides, in relevant part: (a) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter ......

...liability provisions of s. 440.11 from action at law or in admiralty on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor. Section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes (2001) provides, in relevant part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee......

...PEARSON, TILLMAN, Chief Judge. The plaintiff in a negligence action against the defendant, Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc., appeals a summary final judgment. There is no dispute as to the material facts, and the trial court found the defendant immune from suit by reason of § 440.10(1), Fla....

...ndant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Appellant's contention upon appeal is that the owner of the truck is vicariously liable because of the dangerous instrumentality doctrine applicable to automobiles, regardless of the provisions of §§ 440.10 and 440.11. We do not think this is true because the truck in question was leased by the defendant to plaintiff's employer, was being operated by the lessee's employee, and was being used as a part of the construction machinery. Affirmed. NOTES [1] § 440.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.: "(1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under §§ 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16....

...Delta filed a motion for final summary judgment on the grounds that it was Cunningham's statutory employer under the worker's compensation statute, and it was therefore immune from suit because Cunningham's statutory compensation was his exclusive remedy. The lower court denied the motion, and Delta appeals. Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), states that "[I]n case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor ......

...ex. See 13 Am.Jur.2d, Carriers, § 175 (1964) (common carrier owes public a duty to care for all to the extent of its capacity); § 226 (contract for transport by common carrier may be either express or implied). Pursuant to the explicit language of 440.10, Cunningham is considered to be Delta's employee. See Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts, 550 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1989); Miami Herald Publishing v. Hatch, 617 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Also, in light of section 440.10's language that a contractor may subcontract "any part or parts" of its work, Intex's argument that the work must be primary to the contract fails....

...Therefore, Hartford's promise to provide workers' compensation coverage to the coinsureds (Criterion and Evans Blount) induced Gulf Coast to allow Evans Blount to begin working at the job site. Claimant's injury constituted the detrimental result that followed Gulf Coast's reliance. Second, Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, requires a general contractor to provide workers' compensation coverage for a subcontractor's employees except when the subcontractor already has obtained coverage....

...Prior to 1974, a physician did not have independent standing under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes to bring an action against an insurance company for the payment of his outstanding bill or bills before a deputy commissioner (then judge of industrial claims). § 440.10(1), Fla....

...355, 360 , 82 S.Ct. 780, 784 , 7 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962) 3 Pompano, as required by its contract with Futch, had covered Penton with workers' compensation insurance in accordance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, Fla.Stat. §§ 440.01-440.60 (1987). Fla.Stat. § 440.10(1) provides in pertinent part: (1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, [such as Pompano,] ... shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment to his employees, ... of the compensation payable under ss. 440.13 [medical services and supplies], 440.15 [compensation for disability], and 440.16 [compensation for death]. Fla.Stat. § 440.10(1) (1987)....

...Penton's remedy against Pompano--and Futch and Futch Leasing, as well--under Florida tort law for the injuries he had sustained was exclusively that provided by the state's workers' compensation statute. Fla.Stat. § 440.11(1) provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to...

...Vista and Ewing do not appear to disagree with much of what has been set forth heretofore. In their brief they state: The only real issue on appeal is whether or not the Defendant VISTA PROPERTIES OF VERO BEACH, INC. qualified as a general contractor within the purview of Florida Statute 440.10(1)....

...Caraccioli filed a worker's compensation against KFC Management and has received or is receiving worker's compensation benefits to the extent provided for by Chapter 440, Fla. Stat. DISCUSSION Defendant asserts that its liability is prescribed by the Florida Worker's Compensation Act, § 440.10, Fla.Stat....

...ral contractor's direct supervision, and notwithstanding that the owner had some direct dealings with appellant's employer, the floor covering company, that entity was performing part of appellee's obligation under the main contract, therefore under section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1979), the floor covering company was a subcontractor to appellee and appellant was a statutory employee of appellee....

...ORFINGER, C.J., and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1981); Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 1973); Smith v. Ussery, 261 So.2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1972); Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285, 287 (Fla. 1954). [2] § 440.10, Fla....

...v. Florida Power Corp ., 72 So.2d at 289. This passage was quoted in Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d at 59 (citing Jones v. Florida Power Corp . and Smith v. Ussery ) and Smith v. Ussery, 261 So.2d at 165 (citing Jones v. Florida Power Corp . ). [6] See § 440.10(1), Fla....

...One claim was barred because it had already been decided on the merits on appeal. The other was barred because the defendant had “unjustifiabl[y] fail[ed]” to raise it on appeal. Id. at 7, 121 S. Ct. at 363 (citing N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10(2)(a), 2(c)). 5 which a motion is not “properly filed”: when a motion is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction to hear it....

...ll workers' compensation benefits with no mention of the minor children. Thereafter, United moved for summary judgment in the wrongful death action, asserting that it was immune from liability in tort as the decedent's statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...This being so, the trial court determined that no independent action could be maintained again Florida Airmotive, the lessor of the instrumentality injuring plaintiff and, in effect, the third party tortfeasor, on the basis of vicarious liability. Sections 440.10, 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Zenchak v....

...[2] In regard to any possible effect of the Trail Builders case on workmen's compensation litigation, see ch. 71-190, Laws of Florida 1971. This chapter amends § 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. (Supp. 1970), to specify that the employer's liability under F.S. § 440.10, F.S.A., is exclusive and in place of all other liability to any third party tortfeasor, as well as to the employee or other person who would otherwise be entitled to recover damages from the employer.

...al contractor responsible for workers' compensation coverage for the appellee. We fully agree that claimant was not an independent contractor, but we must reverse on the ground that Century Village East, Inc. is not an employer within the meaning of Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...ether Century Village East, Inc. was liable to appellee for workers' compensation benefits. The evidence revealed that Century Village East, Inc. was not only the general contractor, but that it was building condominiums for itself for resale. Under Section 440.10, in case a contractor sublets any part of his contract work to a subcontractor, all of the employees of the subcontractor engaged on such work are deemed to be employed in the same business, and the contractor is liable for payment of...

...The County and Montenay defended on the basis that the claims against them were barred by workers' compensation immunity. We agree with the trial court, which correctly determined that the County and Montenay are entitled to workers' compensation immunity pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...Roberts, 550 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1989). HBH, however, secured the payment of workers' compensation for its own employees and upon Suarez's death HBH's workers' compensation carrier paid benefits to Yero. Under these circumstances Montenay is immune from suit. As to the County, its 440.10(1)(b) immunity arises out of its having contracted with Florida Power Corporation....

...Ryland Group, Inc. (Ryland), [1] is entitled to immunity from tort liability in an action filed by an injured employee of one of the subcontractors working on the project. We conclude that Ryland is not the injured worker's statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), and therefore, is not entitled to the immunity provided by section 440.11....

...[4] It is the obligation to secure workers' compensation that gives the employer immunity from suit as a third-party tortfeasor. Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285, 287 (Fla.1954). This immunity from suit is commensurate with the duty to secure compensation. Id. Pursuant to the provisions of section 440.10(1)(a), [5] Ryland had a statutory obligation to secure workers' compensation for its own employees. However, Ryland had a statutory liability to secure workers' compensation for Gallego's employee, Cuero, only if Ryland was a "contractor" as that term is used in section 440.10(1)(b), which provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contrac...

...within the meaning of the act. Thus, the question that must be examined is whether Ryland was subletting to Sunfish a portion of a primary obligation it had assumed under a contract with a third party. Because one does not become a contractor under section 440.10 merely by entering into a contract with a subcontractor, we must examine the nature of the contractual undertakings by Ryland and its subcontractor to determine whether a true contractor and subcontractor relationship exists under section 440.10(1)(b)....

...Thus, the only privity of contract or obligation of Sunfish to perform work on the Bayshore *330 Townhomes project was with Ryland, the owner of the project. Furthermore, the sales agreements upon which Ryland relies are not construction contracts nor do they give rise to the contractor relationship required by section 440.10(1)(b)....

...And, Ryland's status would be subject to change during the course of construction on an individual unit from day to day or hour to hour as agreements were executed or defaulted. Our conclusion that Ryland and, in turn, Sunfish are not entitled to immunity is consistent with cases construing the provisions of sections 440.10 and 440.11....

...NOTES [1] Of the several defendants in the underlying litigation, The Ryland Group, Inc., and Sunfish Framing and Construction, Inc., are the only participants in this appeal. [2] Section 440.11(1) provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to...

...injury or death. [3] Cuero conceded that if Ryland was entitled to immunity, Sunfish would likewise be entitled to immunity. [4] Because we are reversing the trial court's immunity determination, we do not address the waiver and estoppel issues. [5] Section 440.10(1)(a) provides: Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment to his or her employees, o...

...Workers' Compensation Immunity In its motion, Grundy argues that Plaintiffs' negligence claims against it are barred by Florida's workers' compensation immunity doctrine. Even though Grundy is not a direct employer of Feraci, Grundy asserts that, as a general contractor, it is a "statutory employer" under Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Section 440.10(1)(b) provides that: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a sucontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work sha...

...to be employed in one and the same business or establishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Fla. Stat. § 440.10(1)(b) (2002)....

...P & S secured the workers' compensation benefits for Feraci in the employee leasing agreement between P & S and TMG, and TMG provided those benefits for Feraci. Therefore, the subcontract between Grundy and P & S made Grundy a statutory employer under § 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes, thereby entitling Grundy to workers' compensation immunity....

...Accordingly, the judge of compensation claims committed reversible error when he held to the contrary. Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that Specialty and Zenith are not obliged to provide any benefits to Davis. Davis argues that, if Specialty and Zenith are not responsible for benefits, Hartley is, pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), because he was employed by Davidson and Davidson (who was Hartley's subcontractor) did not obtain workers' compensation insurance covering him....

...cident, Davis was a sole proprietor engaged in the construction industry who had filed a notice with the Division of Workers' Compensation pursuant to section 440.05, Florida Statutes (1995), electing to be exempt from the provisions of chapter 440. Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), makes a contractor liable for the payment of compensation benefits to all of the employees of each of its subcontractors, unless the subcontractor has obtained workers' compensation insurance covering the employees....

...15, 1994). Because the notice of election to be exempt from the workers' compensation law had not yet become effective on the date of Davis' accident, we conclude that Hartley is liable for any benefits to which Davis might be entitled, pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...oth statutory employees of Hendry County Rock Company, thus limiting her to Workmen's Compensation benefits, is without merit. Hendry County Rock Company was not a "contractor" and the defendant was not a "subcontractor" as those terms are used in F.S. 440.10(1), F.S.A., so as to confine the plaintiff to Workmen's Compensation benefits as provided in F.S....

...Goodman, P.A., of Simons, Simons, Tobin & Goodman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees. MILLS, Judge. Central Disposal and its workers' compensation carrier, American Motorists, contend the deputy erred in entering an order finding Disposal to be a statutory employer of Debrosse under Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...He suffered fractures of his left arm and femur, as well as numerous broken ribs. It was undisputed that Debrosse's employer, Parrish, carried no workers' compensation insurance. Debrosse proceeded against Disposal on the theory that it was his common statutory employer pursuant to Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...The function of Waste Management was to collect and dispose of solid waste from municipalities in Broward County. The collection and disposal by Disposal of residential and commercial garbage in Broward County was done pursuant to governmental contracts. Cover dirt was necessary to the landfill operation. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1981), reads in pertinent part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors...

...The current statute clearly precludes any claims against a carrier as a third party tort feasor under the circumstances of this case. The statute now reads as follows: "440.11 Exclusiveness of liability. — (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tort-feasor and to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recove...

...SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. NOTES [1] These allegations against Hastings also named Daniel Schmith, an officer, director, and shareholder from 1985 through 1991. Hastings and Schmith filed a motion for summary judgment alleging immunity from suit pursuant to section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Futch." He then found that the appellee insurance company was under no duty to defend Futch or to pay any judgment that may be rendered against him in any action growing out of the occurrence wherein the appellant, Michaels, was injured. *429 In deciding this case, it is necessary that we consider §§ 440.10 and 440.11, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. It is provided in § 440.10(1): "Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under §§ 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16....

...and the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment." In § 440.11 it is provided: "The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, * *" We have studied the many cases that have been cited in the brief of each party hereto, but, for the purpose of this decision, we believe that the case of Smith v....

...the controlling question in that case was whether the defendant, Poston, is a third party against whom an independent action can be maintained under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He goes on to say that it is necessary to take into consideration §§ 440.10(1) and 440.11, Fla....

...: "The appellant urges that in order to apply section 440.11, supra, and thereupon find that workman's compensation was the exclusive remedy, the trial judge was required to find that Poston, who lent the men and equipment, was a subcontractor under section 440.10(1), supra....

...ry fellow servants under a `common employer', who was liable to secure the payment of workman's compensation for all of them. Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt, Fla. 1950, 48 So.2d 840." It is apparent, therefore, that within the purview of §§ 440.10(1) and 440.11, Fla....

...Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and SHEVIN, JJ. LEVY, Judge. Miami Dade County ("the County") appeals from a trial court Order that entered Final Summary Judgment against the County and stated that the County was not Appellee's statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes....

...me issue. The trial court agreed with Appellee and entered Partial Summary Judgment against the County stating that the County was not entitled to workers' compensation immunity. The County again appealed and the cases were consolidated. We reverse. Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on s...

...be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). To be recognized as a "contractor" within the meaning of section 440.10(1)(b), the County's primary obligation in performing the remediation must arise out of a contract....

...Moreover, the County contracted this obligation to OHM who, in turn, subcontracted with Resource Reclamation, Appellee's employer, to do the remediation. Accordingly, because Appellee's injury occurred while performing those remediation efforts, the County was Appellee's statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b). Gator Freightways, 550 So.2d at 1119; Rodrigues, 686 So.2d at 775; Miami Herald Pub. v. Hatch, 617 So.2d 380, 381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In Miami Herald Publishing v. Hatch , the Court explained that the intent of section 440.10(1)(b) "is to insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking.......

...f the subcontractor fails to provide such coverage." Hatch, 617 So.2d at 384-85 (quoting Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc., 538 So.2d 55, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA) approved, 550 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1989)). See also Rodrigues, 686 So.2d at 775. It is clear that section 440.10(1)(b) places on the statutory employer, the County here, the responsibility for providing, or ensuring that the subcontractor provides, workers' compensation coverage to its, including its subcontractors', employees....

...With relation to employers, Workers' Compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy for employees who are injured on the job. Consequently, where the statutory employer secures coverage, or ensures that the subcontractor does so, the statutory employer is immune from suit for the employee's personal injuries. See § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...Allen sustained an electrical injury when Joseph touched a high voltage wire with the crane's boom. The trial court held Joseph "was an employee or borrowed servant" of American and that, as such, Joseph individually and he and his partner, as owners of the crane, partake of American's immunity as Allen's employer. Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1971), required an employer subject to the act to provide workmen's compensation benefits for his employees and required a *797 general contractor to provide benefits for his own and his subcontractors' employees....

...Nor should our decision be read as granting partial summary judgment for plaintiff, or as precluding proof that may ultimately sustain appellees' position. The prayer of the petition for rehearing is DENIED. MILLS, Acting C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur. NOTES [1] A 1974 amendment to § 440.10, not here pertinent, withholds immunity from a subcontractor whose employee negligently injures the employee of another subcontractor. Ch. 74-197, § 6, Fla.Laws; § 440.10(1), Fla....

...truction contractor as a subcontractor, unless the subcontractor has validly elected an exemption as permitted by this chapter, or has otherwise secured the payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor, consistent with s. 440.10, for work performed by or as a subcontractor. 7 § 440.02 (15)(c)2, Fla....

...Gerelco, as a subcontractor who secured the payment of compensation, is not an “employee,” it follows that Gerelco is not a fellow employee subject to the unrelated works exception to immunity. This conclusion is separately confirmed by reading section 440.10(e), Florida Statutes (2014), which is the specific provision dealing with immunity for subcontractors. In the same 2003 law changing the statutory definition of the term “employee” to exclude subcontractors who secured payment of compensation, the Legislature added the language in section 440.10(e) providing that a subcontractor is protected by the exclusiveness-of–liability provisions from claims by the employees of the contractor or of other subcontractors, if it secured compensation for its employees and the injury was not caused by the subcontractor’s gross negligence. Ch. 2003-412, § 1 & 8, Laws of Fla. (amending §§ 440.02 (15)(c) & 440.10 (e)). After the 2003 amendment, section 440.10(e) now reads: (e) A subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work is not liable for the payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor...

...3d DCA 2010). 9  As is apparent, the provision of the law providing immunity to subcontractors has an exception to immunity for gross negligence, but, unlike the specific provision for fellow employees, does not have an exception to immunity for unrelated works. Compare § 440.10(e) with § 440.11(1)....

...indicates that the Legislature did not intended to provide an unrelated works exception from immunity to subcontractors who had secured compensation for their employees. Accordingly, we hold that the current versions of sections 440.02 (15)(c), 440.10 (e), and 440.11, when read together, provide that the “unrelated works” exception to immunity does not apply to a claim by an employee of the contractor, like Mr....

...l at trial as a matter of law. Id.; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). As discussed above, because Gerelco is a subcontractor who secured compensation, Gerelco is entitled to immunity unless the accident was caused by its gross negligence. §440.10 (1)(e)(2)....

...Fast Tract raised numerous defenses, including its argument that Claimant had earned no wages as defined by section 440.02(28), Florida Statutes; therefore, no benefits were due. The Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that Fast Tract was Claimant's statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and was responsible for providing Claimant's workers' compensation benefits....

...Rich filed claim on August 31, 1967. Fireman's Fund claimed that its coverage expired on July 26, 1967, prior to the industrial accident on August 8, 1967. If this was the situation, then Kenneth, the prime contractor, could become involved as statutory employer under Fla. Stat. § 440.10(1) (1967), F.S.A., because the direct employer, sub-contractor Reliable, would be without coverage....

...eemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment... . Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....

...1st DCA 1962). Acme was not shown to have any contractual obligation to perform work for another, a part of which it sublet to Brickner. Brickner was performing Acme's own work, not part of Acme's work for another. This circumstance defeats a claim under Section 440.10(1)....

...t J.A. Jones, Pacesetters, and the latter's employee, John Doe. [2] She first contends the lower court erroneously concluded J.A. Jones was entitled to summary judgment, because it was her statutory employer and therefore immune from liability under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), which provides, in pertinent part: In case a contractor sublets any part......

...Jones and Complete Clean All required Clean All and not J.A. Jones to provide workers' compensation insurance for the employees of Clean All; therefore, as a matter of law, she could not be considered the statutory employee of the general contractor. Folds misreads section 440.10(1)(b)....

...n statute. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS Workers’ compensation immunity applies to all statutory employers, such as Lan, and subcontractors that provide services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project, such as Infinity. Fla. Stat. §§ 440.10 -.il (2003)....

...is fellow-employee, was grossly negligent, 3) Robaina was negligent while operating in the furtherance of the same employer’s business but assigned primarily to unrelated works, and 4) Infinity, a subcontractor that shares statutory immunity under section 440.10, was grossly negligent. Fla. Stat. §§ 440.10 -.il....

...10 Because Robai-na was not included in the lawsuit, there is no reason to analyze whether he was grossly negligent or involved in unrelated works. III. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Vallejos cannot prove that Infinity was grossly negligent under section 440.10(l)(e)(2)....

...A subcontractor that does not employ the plaintiff but is employed by the same general contractor as the plaintiff also enjoys immunity under the workers’ compen *552 sation statute unless “[t]he subcontractor’s own gross negligence was ... the major contributing cause of the injury.” Fla. Stat. § 440.10 (1)(e) (2)....

...Vallejos also argues that the release, by its terms, releases only Professional and its carrier from liability. However, the workers’ compensation statute applies to all statutory employees, not just those that were a party to the workers’ compensation case. Fla. Stat. § 440.10 ....

...An employee so engaged by the employer shall be considered a borrowed employee of the employer and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer. The employer shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such borrowed employees as required in § 440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help supply services company....

...Shenandoah was required by its contract with the county to supply worker's compensation coverage. The trial court denied the county's motion for summary judgment on its claim of immunity from suit as the plaintiff's "statutory" employer pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes....

...All of the revenue to operate comes from the eleven municipalities. It is undisputed that the work (removal of debris from the aeration tank to allow transmission and treatment of wastewater) being performed by Shenandoah's employee was necessary to implementing the county's contractual duty. Section 440.10(1)(b) provides: (b) In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work sha...

...e's personal injuries, as worker's compensation is the exclusive remedy. Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts, 550 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1989); Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Cunningham, 658 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (1993). We note that section 440.10(1)(b) covers a subcontract of "any part or parts" of the work for which the statutory employer is obligated....

...Barrow, claimant, appeals the final order of the deputy commissioner finding that no employer/employee relationship existed between claimant and Shelton Trucking and that Shelton Trucking was not a statutory employer of claimant under the provisions of section 440.10, Florida Statutes (Fla....

...hat Cuyahoga was a general contractor on the demolition job and sublet a part of its contract work, i.e., removal of the antenna, to Mobile, Mastres's employer. If this proved to be the case, Cuyahoga would be Mastres's statutory employer and, under Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1977), workmen's compensation would be Mastres's exclusive remedy....

...uit because of the exclusive remedy provisions of the Florida Workmen's Compensation Law. The position of Larsen and USF&G is that they are immune from suit because International Paper was the statutory employer of both Cork and Gable under Sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1971)....

...They argue that International/Royal "undertook a general obligation ... to furnish specific work, paper-board products and fabricating techniques" to Richfield Packing in accordance with a negotiated agreement and subcontracted a part of its obligation to Larsen Brothers. We disagree. Section 440.10(1) reads as follows: "440.10 Liability for compensation "(1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any *489 brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under §§ 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16....

...and the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment." Section 440.11 provides that the liability of an employer prescribed in Section 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability....

...Power. Reasoning that the "contract" between Florida Power and Fashion Square did not result in the type of contractual obligation contemplated by the statutes, the court held that Florida Power was not a "contractor" within the meaning of Sections 440.10 and 440.11....

...of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. HURLEY, Judge. This appeal is taken from a summary final judgment which found that the defendant/appellee, General Builders Corporation of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. (General Builders), is immune from suit by virtue of sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...subsidiaries were so totally dominated that they were not entitled to be viewed as separate entities. He claimed that if this were established at trial, General Builders would not be entitled to the tort immunity conferred on contractors by sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...The record in the case at bar discloses that the plaintiff submitted documents and depositions to support his contention of total domination. By so doing, the plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning the corporate status of the defendant/subsidiary and the availability of immunity under sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...NOTES [1] Under Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, employers who provide workers' compensation benefits are immune from tort suits by employees injured in the course of their employment. § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (1981). Under the law, "contractors" who sublet work become statutory employers of their subcontractor's employees. § 440.10, Fla....

...filed by claimant Johnny Pullam against Hercules Incorporated (Hercules). We agree with claimant that the judge of compensation claims (JCC) incorrectly concluded that Hercules could not be considered claimant's statutory employer under the terms of section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...Claimant subsequently filed a petition for medical benefits against Hercules on the theory that it was his statutory employer, because Swilley was performing work that Hercules had delegated to it under a contract between Hercules and St. Joe. Claimant based his claim on section 440.10(1)(b), which provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work...

...Mycon Corp., 651 So.2d 149, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Leseke v. Nutaro, 567 So.2d 949, 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The dissent also takes issue with the majority's reliance on the contract Hercules has with St. Joe as the means for finding Hercules a statutory employer under section 440.10....

...The evidence submitted leads to the ineluctable conclusion that the contractor, Hercules, sublet part of its express contract work to a subcontractor, Swilley. Under the circumstances, all of the employees of Swilley engaged in such work must be deemed to be employed in the same business or establishment as that of Hercules. § 440.10(1)(b)....

...ntractor instead of directly for the manufacturer. E.g., § 8-41-401, Colo. Stat. (1994 & 1998 Elec. Update); § 42-1-400, S.C. Stat. (1997). See Glass v. Dow Chemical Co., 325 S.C. 198, 482 S.E.2d 49 (1997). Our own Legislature may some day rewrite section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1997), to bring a worker like Mr....

...er, or the carrier to furnish to the employee or other claimant informational materials required under this chapter, unless such omission by the employer or carrier was intentional and done to deprive the employee of benefits due under this chapter. § 440.10(1)(a), Fla....

...ules required the denial of “claims that were ‘previously determined on the merits upon an appeal from the judgment’ of conviction or that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not[.]” 121 S.Ct. at 365 (quoting N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10(2)(a) (McKinney 1994))....

...Wright, Inc., d/b/a Wright Construction Corporation (Wright), appeals from the trial court's order denying its motion for summary judgment. Wright argues that it is immune from suit because of the workers' compensation immunity provided to a general contractor pursuant to sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987)....

...He later filed an action against Wright, Suncoast Steel & Pipe, Suncoast Fabricators, and various other managerial and supervisory personnel under intentional tort and gross negligence theories. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, alleging that they were entitled to immunity from suit under sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987), [1] since Edwards received *809 workers' compensation benefits through Suncoast Fabricator's insurance policy....

...§ 440.11(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987); Dodge v. William E. Arnold Co., 373 So.2d 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Since Edwards' employer, Suncoast Fabricators, had workers' compensation coverage, Wright, as general contractor, was a statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10 entitled to the same immunity as Suncoast Fabricators....

...ss negligence. Therefore, the trial court erred in failing to grant Wright's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Wright's amended motion for summary final judgment. DANAHY, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 440.10(1) states in part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shal...

...e contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Section 440.11 states in part: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to...

...MARINER PROPERTIES, INC., acting as agent for SOUTH SEAS PLANTATION, LTD." insofar as he found Avila to have been a subcontractor. By virtue of this finding, the judge required appellant to pay workers' compensation benefits to appellee pursuant to § 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1977), which in pertinent part states as follows: "......

...The service entryway was not included in the remodeling project. Pursuant to its remodeling contract with Deerfield 21, Visions maintained a workers' compensation insurance policy which covered the employees of subcontractors involved in the project, including Hogan. LAW The Florida Workers' Compensation Law, section 440.10 Florida Statutes (1991), states that every employer within the provisions of the law must provide workers' compensation benefits....

...d is therefore the employee's exclusive remedy. However, this statutory defense of exclusiveness of remedy is only available to those who qualify as either an "employer" or a "contractor" within the meaning of the workers' compensation law. Sections 440.10 and 440.11 provide in part: 440.10 Liability for compensation....

...ntractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability. (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law......

...of the statute) and the 2010 amendment is almost three times the ten-year period. See Ramcharitar v. Derosins, 35 So.3d 94, 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reversing an order finding the amendment was a clarification; concluding that “the 2003 revision to section 440.10 occurred twenty years after the Court decided Abernathy and some twenty-nine years after the 1974 amendment to section 440.10....

...tractors will rely upon a subcontractor's proof of such coverage. AFFIRMED. WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Ruotal Corp., N.W., Inc. v. Ottati, 391 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (knowledge of agent imputed to principal). [2] See Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....

..., and $1,100 in case number 1D04-2908. The Department adopted the recommendations and issued final orders to that effect. Riopelle does not challenge the factual findings on appeal, but instead raises several legal challenges. First, she claims that section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2001), violates the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution, because it does not provide for notice or an opportunity to be h...

...Dep't of Banking and Fin., 584 So.2d 112, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (stating that the appellant "cannot request a hearing in a manner that would suggest routine handling and then complain for the first time on appeal that she was not given an early hearing."). Riopelle therefore fails to show that section 440.107 is unconstitutional by denying due process to an employer found to be in violation of chapter 440. Riopelle also claims that section 440.107 violates the excessive-fines clause in article I, section 17, of the Florida Constitution, because the $22,200 assessed against her is disproportionate to her offense, when she honestly believed her workers were independent contractors. Of this amount, however, $20,000 was imposed in case number 1D04-1347 under a different statute altogether — section 440.10(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2001) — which authorizes a maximum fine of $5,000 for each employee an employer misclassifies as an independent contractor. The fines imposed under the statute that Riopelle challenges on appeal were a $100 fine in each case pursuant to section 440.107(5), which authorized a fine of $100 per day "for each day the employer was not in compliance with this chapter," [2] and two $1,000 fines in each case pursuant to section 440.107(7), which authorized a fine against an employer who has failed to secure workers'-compensation coverage in "an amount equal to at least the amount that the employer would have paid or up to twice the amount the employer would have pai...

...A reviewing court should grant substantial deference to the legislature's determination of the appropriate punishment for an offense. Id. at 2037. Riopelle does not provide any argument that shows this court why $2,200 in penalties, as authorized by section 440.107, is disproportionate to her conduct in allowing eight employees to engage in new-home construction without workers'-compensation coverage....

...Case number 1D04-2908 involved three workers building a home in Riverview on August 8, 2003. [2] Effective October 1, 2003, after Riopelle's violations herein, the legislature amended this provision, raising the penalty to $1,000 per day. Ch. 2003-412, §§ 13 & 50, at 30 & 111, Laws of Fla. (now at § 440.107(7)(c), Fla....

...The employer/carrier appeal a deputy commissioner's order granting workers' compensation benefits to claimant. The primary issue for our consideration is whether the deputy commissioner erred in finding that the claimant was a "statutory employee" of Boyd-Scarp Enterprises, Inc., pursuant to Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1981), and was not an independent contractor....

...overed by the Commercial Union policy. See, Sections 440.02(2)(c), 440.05, Florida Statutes (1981). We reverse, however, the deputy commissioner's finding that claimant was covered under the State Farm policy as a "statutory employee" of Boyd-Scarp. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1981), states that a contractor must provide workers' compensation coverage to all employees of a subcontractor when such employees have not been provided coverage by the subcontractor....

...or. Pursuant to Section 440.02(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), a sole proprietor may affirmatively elect to be considered an employee of his business. If such election is made, then the sole proprietor would be considered an employee for purposes of Section 440.10(1)....

...1st DCA 1983), in which this court affirmed the ruling of a deputy commissioner denying compensation benefits to a subcontractor's president who had elected to be exempt from coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act, and therefore was not deemed to be an employee of the general contractor under Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, with respect to injuries incurred while working at the general contractor's construction site....

...See, also, Chase v. Tenbroeck, 399 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Accordingly, under both statutory and case law, it is clear that claimant is not an employee of his sole proprietorship and, therefore, is not a statutory employee of Boyd-Scarp pursuant to Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes....

...at duty was violated, thereby precluding summary judgment. We also conclude that the trial court erred in granting Chosen Sound's motion for summary judgment based upon its conclusion that Chosen Sound was entitled to workers' compensation immunity. Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors enga...

...Biggins claims Chosen Sound was not entitled to workers' compensation immunity because Chosen Sound was a subcontractor standing in a horizontal relationship to Biggins's employer, Backstage, which was another subcontractor under the same general contractor (Fantasma). See § 440.10(1)(e), Fla....

...rotected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 from action at law or in admiralty on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor). [1] Chosen Sound concedes that it was not Biggins's statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), however, Chosen Sound claims that it is entitled to workers' compensation immunity because Biggins was Chosen Sound's borrowed servant under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1999). Although it is not clear in the trial court's order whether it granted summary judgment on the basis of workers' compensation immunity pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), [2] it would nonetheless be error to do so in this case because Chosen Sound was not Biggins's statutory employer....

...An employee so engaged by the employer shall be considered a borrowed employee of the employer, *960 and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer. The employer shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such borrowed employees as required in s. 440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help supply services company....

...roscopic surgical equipment and corresponding support services qualified as a help supply services company). We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and Remanded. STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, has since been amended to provide that these subcontractors are protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of section 440.11 provided that: "1....

...The subcontractor has secured workers' compensation insurance for its employees or the contractor has secured such insurance on behalf of the subcontractor and its employees in accordance with paragraph (b); and 2. The subcontractor's own gross negligence was not the major contributing cause of the injury." See § 440.10(1)(e), Fla....

...Gadarian Graham, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for appellees. POLEN, J. Appellants Alfredo Amorin ("Alfredo") and his brother Jose Amorin ("Jose") appeal a partial summary judgment denying them workers' compensation immunity pursuant to Florida Statute section 440.10(1)(e) and granting Appellee Gordon's cross motion for summary judgment....

...For the Amorins to assert the immunity, Gordon argued, workers' compensation coverage must have been provided by the contractor, the subcontractor, or the sub-subcontractor. Neither Elmo Greer, C & A, nor Jose provided such coverage for the Amorins. Gordon also argued that the newly enacted statute — § 440.10(1)(e), Fla....

...ce for its employees or the contractor has secured such insurance on behalf of the subcontractor and its employees in accordance with paragraph (b); and (2) the subcontractor's own gross negligence was not the major contributing cause of the injury. § 440.10(1)(e), Fla....

...be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...Since its recent enactment in 2004, no case law has interpreted the horizontal immunity statute. Vertical immunity, in contrast, is a well-settled doctrine, requiring contractors to be liable for and to secure workers' compensation for their employees in exchange for the "exclusiveness of liability." See §§ 440.10(1)(a) & 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2004). The two doctrines are considered here, in pari materia. As interpreted in the context of vertical immunity, "[s]ection 440.10 establishes the concept of `statutory employer' for contractors who sublet part of their work to others." Motchkavitz v....

...compensation, the contractor is liable for the same. If both subcontractor and contractor fail to secure coverage, then the contractor has an employer's liability to the subcontractor's injured employee." Id. "The obvious legislative intent [behind section 440.10 is] to insure that a person performing a contractor's work, even as an employee of a subcontractor, shall be entitled to workers' compensation protection with the primary employer if the subcontractor fails to provide such coverage." Roberts v....

...Because Gordon does not assert that the major contributing cause of the accident was Alfredo's gross negligence, the Amorins are entitled to horizontal immunity. We, thus, reverse the trial court's partial summary judgment for Gordon. II. Constitutionality of Section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004) Gordon argues additionally that section 440.10(1)(e) is unconstitutional, that horizontal immunity deprives injured persons at construction sites of their common law right to sue unrelated entities without providing some alternative remedy as a quid pro quo. In relying on a line of cases decided prior to the 2004 amendment to section 440.10, Gordon emphasizes what is enumerated in section 440.015 as the legislative intent behind the workers' compensation system: "The workers' compensation system in Florida is based on a mutual renunciation of common-law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike." § 440.015, Fla....

...Jacksonville Electric Auth., 399 So.2d 396, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Here, Gordon asserts that the common law right of Novelle and his estate to sue unrelated subcontractors for injuries caused by their negligence has been completely abolished by the 2004 amendment to section 440.10....

...ce for its employees or the contractor has secured such insurance... and the subcontractor's own gross negligence was not the major contributing cause of the injury," one subcontractor cannot be shielded from tort liability to another subcontractor. § 440.10(1)(e), Fla....

...lid. Novelle's survivors have been beneficiaries of workers' compensation in this case, and their common law right to seek tort remedies from the Amorins was not completely abolished by the horizontal immunity statute. As such, Gordon's challenge of section 440.10(1)(e) on constitutional grounds is denied....

...David and Deronda Green appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of APAC-Florida, Inc. (APAC). The trial court concluded that APAC was Mr. Green's statutory employer and, thus, immune from suit under the workers' compensation statute. See §§ 440.10, .11, Fla....

...Claiming to be Mr. Green's statutory employer, APAC argued that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity. Under the workers' compensation statute, an employer "shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment" of benefits prescribed under the statute. § 440.10(1)(a)....

...ractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business... and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees ...." § 440.10(1)(b)....

...ability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee. . . ." § 440.11(1). A statutory employer immune from suit is a contractor who "sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors." § 440.10(1)(b)....

...t of that "contract work" — its obligation to transport their luggage — to Ground Services. On this basis, Pan American was held immune from tort liability to Williams as a Ground Services employee under the exclusive remedy provisions of Sections 440.10, [1] 440.11, [2] Fla....

...pensable portion and was thus, to use the legal term of art, merely "incidental" to the essence of the "prime contracts" — which was clearly to transport the passengers themselves. Under the now highly-buffed judicial gloss which has been placed on Section 440.10, Pan Am is not entitled to immunity for this reason as well....

...emed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Sec. 440.10, Fla. Stat. (1981). [2] [T]he liability of an employer described in S.440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor....

...Schoch paid him $10,500. The claimant later brought a workers' compensation claim against Mr. Schoch who, in turn, filed with the Deputy a Petition for Contribution or Reimbursement from U.S. Home. After a hearing, the Deputy found that pursuant to § 440.10(1), Fla....

...Hill, Hollywood, for appellee. WOLF, Judge. Sean Andrews appeals a workers' compensation, order denying his claim for benefits. Claimant asserts on appeal that the judge of compensation claims erred in ruling that: 1) the claimant was not a statutory employee pursuant to section 440.10, Florida Statutes, since he was not "engaged in contract work" for the appellee, Drywall Enterprises, at the time of the accident, and 2) the "going and coming" rule precluded the employee from collecting compensation benefits....

...ehicle that ran a red light. Claimant was a passenger in the truck and injured his left knee. Richard Smith did not have compensation coverage. The claimant filed for compensation benefits claiming that Drywall was his statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes....

...Accordingly, although the three would have had the benefit of the statutory employer doctrine had they been on the job site engaged in the contract work, in the instant case, the going and coming rule applies to defeat compensability ... By its express terms, Florida Statute 440.10 refers to protection by a contractor for those `engaged in the contract work.' ... The terms of Florida Statute 440.10 do not require a contractor to be responsible for that which it did not `consentingly' sublet, for by definition; this is not contract work....

...The hazard of going and coming from work are undeniably no part of the contract between Richard Smith and Drywall. Therefore, Richard Smith, Kelvin Iwansky and Sean Andrews (the claimant) were not engaged on the contract work at the time of the accident, and the going and coming rule applies to defeat recovery. Sec. 440.10(1). The judge of compensation claims has construed the phrase "engaged in contract work" in such a manner that in order to be considered a statutory employee pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, the employee must be injured on the job site to recover. Such a restrictive interpretation contravenes the statutory intent and established law that a statutory employee and direct employees have equal rights and benefits. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, is designed to ensure that employees engaged in the same contract work are covered regardless of whether they are employees of the general contractor or its subcontractor....

...Hercules's defense, inter alia, is that by virtue of the exclusive liability section of the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., FPL is precluded from regaining indemnity against Hercules. It is conceded by FPL that Hercules has secured the benefits of Workmen's Compensation under Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to Rita Ahearn. Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S. A., reads in pertinent part as follows: The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all of the liability of such employer to * * * anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law * * * on account of such injury or death * * *....

...Roelofs involved the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Act which is markedly different from that in Florida. Under La.Rev.Stat. 23:1061 a principal, as well as a principal contractor, is liable for the payment of workmen's compensation, whereas under F.S. 440.10 this is not the case....

...Statutory immunity does not extend to Destiny, Gamboa, and Garcia under the facts of this case We first turn to the issue of statutory immunity from liability afforded to certain employers for on-the-job accidents. Appellees contend that under sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (2000), they are statutorily immune from tort liability and Bruno is limited to recovering workers' compensation benefits from LCC. Bruno contends that an exception to statutory immunity applies under the facts of this case. We agree with Bruno. Section 440.10(1)(a) addresses contractors' liability for providing workers' compensation benefits by providing: Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exempt...

...440.13, of the compensation payable under ss. 440.13, 440.15, and 440.16. Any contractor or subcontractor who engages in any public or private construction in the state shall secure and maintain compensation of his or her employees under this chapter as provided in s. 440.38. Section 440.10(1)(b) further expands contractors' liability by providing: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or su...

...estiny and was responsible for providing workers' compensation benefits for all such employees. See Abernathy v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 428 So.2d 272, 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Employers are statutorily immune from liability beyond that provided in section 440.10. This statutory immunity extends to employees acting in furtherance of the employer's business. Section 440.11(1) provides in relevant part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to ......

...employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter. This special statutory immunity does not apply, however, where an employee of one subcontractor is injured by an employee of another subcontractor. See § 440.10(1)(e)....

...Immunity is based on a quid pro quo involving the duty of providing workers' compensation benefits, the absence of which eliminates the corresponding immunity. See Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So.2d 953, 954 (Fla.1983). In this court's Abernathy opinion, we expanded the scope of section 440.10(1)(e) to situations where a general contractor's employee is injured by the negligence of a subcontractor's employee. 428 So.2d at 276. We noted that by the creation of section 440.10(1)(e), the legislature abolished the "common employment" doctrine and replaced it with the principle that "among employees of subcontractors, immunity follows liability to secure compensation." Id. at 275. In explaining the extension of section 440.10(1)(e) to cases involving general contractors and subcontractors, we stated: "Just as there is no `lateral' liability to secure compensation for employees of other subcontractors, a subcontractor has no `liability' to secure compensation for employees of the general contractor." Id....

...Greg's Crane Serv., 576 So.2d 814, 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Here the subcontractor, Destiny, was not required to secure workers' compensation for employees of the general contractor, LCC. Pursuant to the opinions by this court and the supreme court, the section 440.10(1)(e) exception applies to this case and Destiny and its employees are not statutorily immune from suit....

...American and Service denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted the affirmative defense of workers' compensation immunity of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. American and Service moved for summary judgment on this immunity contending that American was Lluch's statutory employer according to section 440.10(1)(b) and the contract between American and ABM....

...We agree with Lluch's contention that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on workers' compensation immunity by concluding that he and Service were not engaged in unrelated works where there was disputed evidence as to the nature and scope of the employee's work. According to section 440.10, American is considered a contractor. See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Cunningham, 658 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Under section 440.10, when a contractor sublets any part or parts of its contract work to a subcontractor, all of the employees of the contractor and the subcontractor engaged in such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment. See § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...ined the same language as the contract between ABM and American; the contract stated that employees of the independent contractor were not to be deemed employees of Gator Freightways. Id. at 1118. The Florida Supreme Court stated that the purpose of section 440.10 was to "insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking." Id....

...JOANOS, Judge. Appellant Orama seeks review of a deputy commissioner's order finding the appellee, Dunmire, not liable for workers' compensation disability and other benefits. We find a statutory employer-employee relationship did exist within the meaning of section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1987) and therefore reverse....

...direct control over Orama. The evidence was also undisputed that Orama was employed by Torres. Appellant next contends that a statutory employment relationship existed between Orama and Dunmire for the purpose of workers' compensation coverage under section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes. This court has held that under section 440.10, a statutory employment relationship may be found to exist even where no actual employment is found. Wooden v. Ploof Truck Lines, Inc., 482 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Barrow v. Shel Products, Inc., 466 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Section 440.10 states in pertinent part: (1) ......

...be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...Dunmire testified that Torres assumed the responsibility *926 for the carpentry work on the duplex. As general contractor Dunmire retained the ultimate and overriding responsibility for the job, yet passed on to Torres the obligation for the carpentry work on the building. The very purpose of section 440.10 is to assure that a general contractor will retain financial responsibility for injuries to those employees working a contract job, even though an independent contractor performs part or all of the undertaking. Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc., 538 So.2d at 60; Barrow v. Shel Products, Inc., 466 So.2d at 282. Dunmire is liable for workers' compensation benefits to Orama under section 440.10, Florida Statutes, where Torres had no workers' compensation coverage and employed Orama to work the job....

...ning the relationship between Olson and the subcontractor, Paxson. He also complains of the court's failure to instruct the jury upon the effect of its finding that Olson either was, or was not a sub-subcontractor to Arnold, which is provided for in Section 440.10 "Liability for Compensation", and Section 440.11 "Exclusiveness of Liability", Florida Statutes....

...*1229 Before GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM. Thomas Smith appeals the trial court's entry of final summary judgment in favor of Mariner's Bay Condominium Association, Inc. (the association), based on statutory employer immunity under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...Thereafter, he sued the association for damages arising from the slip and fall. [2] The association moved for summary judgment on the grounds that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to its entitlement to worker's compensation immunity under sections 440.10(1)(b), 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...nt evidence to show an implied-in-fact contract for security services between itself and the unit owners, and that it had sublet that obligation to Armor Security. Thus, the court concluded that the association was a contractor within the meaning of section 440.10(1)(b) and as such, Smith's statutory employer, which rendered the association immune from civil liability to Smith. We disagree. Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that, In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engage...

...tractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. For the association to be a contractor (and thus Smith's statutory employer) under section 440.10, it must show that it has a contractual obligation to provide security guard services to the unit owners, a portion of which it sublet to Armor Security....

...of the subcontracting of hotel's common law duty to provide safe premises for its guests). We recognize that an entity that has a contractual obligation, all or part of which is sublet to another, is not exempt from being a statutory employer under section 440.10 merely because the performance of that obligation is regulated by statute....

...Since the association has not shown that its obligation to protect the condominium property is one that arises primarily from its contract with the unit owners for security services, rather than from its statutory duty to manage and maintain the property, it cannot be considered Smith's statutory employer under section 440.10....

...Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] The record shows that the association entered into a written contract for security guard services with Armor Security. [2] The association answered and raised affirmative defenses, including that it was Smith's statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b) and thus immune from civil liability.

...primarily liable for the payment of benefits and required to reimburse Belford for compensation benefits already paid the claimant. We hold that the trial court properly awarded fees and costs against Belford under the provisions of Florida Statute § 440.10, in pertinent part as follows: "In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged in such contract w...

...Under these circumstances, Chapter 440 contemplates that the claimant may go directly against the general contractor for compensation benefits due, that the general contractor is liable therefor without showing of any demand made, or refusal to pay on the part of the subcontractor [§ 440.10(2)], and that the general contractor's rights are to *1142 seek reimbursement against the subcontractor, but not to refuse payment [§ 440.42(3)]....

...n favor of the Estate, and in denying American Engineering's motion for summary judgment. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2002), provides in pertinent part as follows: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof,......

...An employee so engaged by the employer shall be considered a borrowed employee of the employer, and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer. The employer shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such borrowed employees as required in section 440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help supply services company....

...Scott, a commercial landlord. The trial court determined that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by workers' compensation immunity. We reverse. Because Mr. Scott is not the statutory employer, he is neither obligated to secure workers' compensation benefits under section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1985), nor is he entitled to immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...at is wholly owned by an individual landowner. An individual receives numerous legal advantages by creating a corporation. One advantage permits the corporation, rather than the individual, to be liable to secure workers' compensation benefits under section 440.10....

...We agree, and we reverse the order appealed. Section 440.02(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes, defines "employment" under the workers' compensation law as including All private employments in which three or more employees are employed by the same employer. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, relating to liability for compensation, provides that only employers who are "within the provisions of [Chapter 440] are liable for the payment of compensation." Since the present case involves a private employer with less than three employees, § 440.10(1) and § 440.02(1)(b)2 establish that claimant is not entitled to the payment of compensation under the workers' compensation law....

...who was the general contractor for the third tower to be constructed). Quayside Associates and Quayside Development defended the suit on the grounds of nonresponsibility for the construction and non-negligence; that they were immune from suit based upon workers' compensation as a bar, pursuant to Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1979); and on comparative negligence....

...At the time of Croon's injury Quayside Associates was the owner and also the general contractor by virtue of assignment of the subcontracts by the original general contractor which was "fired". We hold under these circumstances that Quayside Associates was immune from suit under provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1979) provides every employer coming within the provisions of the chapter shall be liable for the payment to his employees of specified compensation benefits....

...and shall secure payment of compensation to all such employees except where the subcontractor has secured such payment. Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979) titled "Exclusiveness of liability" provides: "The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer ......

a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2004). Put differently, “where

...of cargo. The court found that the hiring of security guards to protect the trucking terminal was merely incidental to the performance of Smalley's contractual obligations, and not a subletting of any contractual obligation. The relevant portion of Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, states in part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such co...

...e crane. Abernathy received workman's compensation benefits from his employer, Deltona, and its insurer. He thereafter sued the subcontractors and their individual insurors in tort. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, raising sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979), as providing immunity from any tort action against them by an employee of a general contractor....

...led to judgment as a matter of law. Perez v. Milton, 322 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). More importantly for our purposes, however, is the basic question of whether a subcontractor is immune from tort actions by an employee of the general contractor. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1979), [1] requires all contractors falling within the provisions of chapter 440 to arrange for compensation for their employees in the manner provided by that chapter....

...ity to B he also has an immunity as to B, not that if A has a liability as to X (but not as to B) he has an immunity as to B. (Footnote omitted.) Larson, Workman's Compensation Law, Vol. 2 A, § 72.33 (1981). In 1974, the Florida legislature amended section 440.10, obviously eliminating the "horizontal" liability by adding the following language: *275 A subcontractor is not liable for the payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor on such contract work and is not protected...

...decision in Miami Roofing. The supreme court recognized this in Motchkavitz v. L.C. Boggs Industries, Inc., 407 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1981). However, though the petitioner there encouraged the court to recede from Younger on the basis of the amendment to section 440.10, the majority declined to do so, holding: This amendment to section 440.10 disclaimed the intent to make subcontractors liable for securing coverage for each others' employees, and correspondingly abrogated their immunity from suit by each others' employees....

...the operative facts transpired before the enactment of chapter 74-197. 407 So.2d at 914. Then Chief Justice Sundberg, joined by Justice Adkins, dissented, saying: Since the result reached by the majority, in my mind, is neither compelled by sections 440.10-.11, Florida Statutes (1971), nor supported in logic under the circumstances of a case such as this, I would recede from Younger v....

...mmunity following liability to secure compensation to just subcontractors. While not controlling, the choice of wording in the title of chapter 74-197 is persuasive to our holding. In explaining the amendment, the title informs that the amendment to section 440.10 is to provide "that the liability provisions of § 440.11, Florida Statutes, do not protect a subcontractor other than the employer of an injured employee." (Emphasis added.) In construing the amended section 440.10 to nullify Younger, we again observe that the majority in Motchkavitz, limited by the time frame of that case, declined to address the effect of the amendment on Younger....

...CAN THE EMPLOYEE OF A "CONTRACTOR", HAVING RECEIVED WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM HIS EMPLOYER, SUE HIS EMPLOYER'S SUBCONTRACTOR FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LATTER'S EMPLOYEE? OTT, C.J., and HOBSON, J., concur. NOTES [1] 440.10 Liability for compensation....

...tor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. [2] 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability. — (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tortfeasor and to the employee, his dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiral...

...ssumed the risk of his employment, or that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee. [3] Section 10(a) of the Workman's Compensation Act, as amended by chapter 18413, Acts of 1937. This statute, first enacted in 1935, is now section 440.10.

...Although we conclude that Arruda is the employee of Gold Crest, the record shows that Gold Crest may not have provided workers' compensation insurance that covers him. If this is established on remand, then Arruda may be considered the "statutory employee" of Casto Homes, pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), [2] for the purpose of paying benefits....

...be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...See Peairs v. Florida Pub. Co., 132 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (reversing directed verdict, remanding for new trial, and holding that employer of independent contractor could be liable where employer knew of dangerous situation and failed to correct it). Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1987), furthermore imposes a duty upon a contractor to secure workers' compensation, and imposes liability for payment of workers' compensation, if the subcontractor has not secured and paid compensation....

...ter 440 to entertain this claimant's claim and there is no provision in chapter 440 authorizing a judge of compensation claims to decline to exercise that jurisdiction for discretionary reasons, as the following analysis of chapter 440 demonstrates. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1987), [6] establishes the basic liability for workers' compensation, and provides that "every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter ......

...the accident or injury occurs within the state of Florida. Additionally, chapter 440 specifically creates liability on the part of the employer directly to "any physician, surgeon, or pharmacist providing services" to an employee injured in Florida, section 440.10(1), and such health care providers can expect to receive payment for their services in accordance with the provisions of section 440.13 and the appropriately adopted schedules....

...denied, 296 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1974). Central to our decision in this appeal is a determination concerning whether Christopher Tenbroeck and Chris Tenbroeck's Crane Rental were statutory employees of a "common employer", that is, subcontractors amenable to suit under sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1975). [2] Formerly section 440.10(1) provided: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be d...

...n one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of *59 compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. The legislature amended section 440.10(1) in 1974 by adding: A subcontractor is not liable for the payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor on such contract work and is not protected by the exclusiveness of liability provisions of s.440.11 from action at law or in admiralty on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor. [3] Section 440.11 provides in part: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s.440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to...

...Although upon casual observation the amendment appeared to change the exclusive status of the worker's compensation remedy by providing an injured worker with an additional source for recovery of damages, Judge Ervin, in McDonald, analyzed pending litigation and reached a different conclusion. According to his reasoning, section 440.10 authorizes claims against subcontractors by employees of another subcontractor only if the employers are independent (horizontal) subcontractors....

...Poston Equipment Rentals, 105 So.2d 578, 579 (Fla.3d DCA 1958): The appellant urges that in order to apply section 440.11, supra, and thereupon find that workman's compensation was the exclusive remedy, the trial judge was required to find that Poston, who lent the men and equipment, was a subcontractor under section 440.10(1), supra....

...requirements of the Act mandating that he secure compensation for the subcontractor's employees. The contractor who has the primary contractual obligation to construct, and who and sublets portions of the work, is a contractor within the meaning of section 440.10 and thus is the statutory employer of the employees of its subcontractors as well as of its own employees....

...A subcontractor may engage a subcontractor and thus be both general contractor and subcontractor depending on the contractual association. McDonald v. Wilson Welding Works, Inc., supra ; see Fidelity Construction Co. v. Collins & Son, 130 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1961). The amendment to section 440.10(1) affects subcontractors formerly exempt from suit. The amendment to Section 440.10(1) applies, in my opinion, to entities that stand in an independent — or horizontal — relationship with the other....

...'s contractual relationships with one another. I conclude that it is now necessary to examine the contractual link between the employer of the injured plaintiff and the employer of the alleged negligent employee to determine whether the amendment to Section 440.10(1) has any applicability....

...If the relationship can be characterized as dependent, the crane rental company is immune because it remains protected by Christopher Tenbroeck's employment for the same statutory employer as employee Chase. If the relationship is independent and characterized as horizontal then, under the 1974 amendment to section 440.10(1), the crane rental company's liability for negligence would not be protected by the exclusive liability provisions of section 440.11(1) in the event negligence were established....

...tor for the performance of any part of such subcontractor's contract. [2] See questions certified in Motchkavitz v. L.C. Beggs Industries, Inc., supra, and Williams v. Corbett Cranes, Inc., 396 So.2d 811 (Fla.5th DCA 1981) concerning liability under section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1973), prior to its amendment in 1974....

...After collecting workmen's compensation benefits from his employer, McDonald sued Wilson contending that under the statute as it existed at the time of his injury, May 12, 1975, Wilson was a subcontractor and therefore not absolved from an action at law. Prior to its amendment, Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1973), generally provided: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged...

...l be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Section 440.10 was amended by Chapter 74-197, Section 6, Laws of Florida, effective October 1, 1974, by adding in part the following sentence: A subcontractor is not liable for the payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor on...

...ane operator and McDonald were fellow servants, that Wilson was entitled to immunity under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and entered summary judgment for Wilson Welding and its insurer. This is a case of first impression involving the amendment to Section 440.10(1)....

...ne not only the vertical relationships between Todd and Steelcon but the contractual arrangement between Steelcon and Wilson. If both were independent of the other in their employment relationship, appellants' point, in my opinion, is well taken and Section 440.10 would now subject Wilson to *865 a suit in tort....

...3d DCA 1958): The appellant urges that in order to apply section 440.11, supra, and thereupon find that workman's compensation was the exclusive remedy, the trial judge was required to find that Poston, who lent the men and equipment, was a subcontractor under section 440.10(1), supra....

...And if the plaintiff and Wilson's employee "were `engaged in the same contract work' under a `common employer', then ... [Wilson Welding] is immune from suit by the plaintiff for the negligence of its employee... ." Id. at 287-288. The amendment to Section 440.10(1) applies, in my opinion, to entities that stand in an independent — or horizontal — relationship with the other....

...ontractual relationships with one another. [1] I conclude that it is now necessary to examine the contractual link between the employer of the injured plaintiff and the employer of the alleged negligent employee to determine whether the amendment to Section 440.10(1) has any applicability....

“secure the payment of compensation” required by section 440.10(l)(a) of the Law to two former employees of

...n holding as a matter of law that a motor vehicle dealer qualifies as a “statutory employer” under existing law and to confirm the continuing authority of Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts, 550 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1989), which expressly states that section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes, is not limited to construction contracts....

...Plaintiff was allegedly injured in the course and scope of his employment to provide such services, and he received worker’s compensation benefits pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, King Motor was the statutory or special employer of Plaintiff pursuant to Section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes, or, alternatively, Plaintiff was the borrowed servant of King Motor. For these reasons, King Motor is entitled to immunity from this suit under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act, and this action is barred by Section 440.11, Fla. Stat. Felder filed a motion to strike this affirmative defense arguing that section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), 1 was applicable only to the type of contractual obligations that arise within the construc *107 tion industry. King responded to the motion to strike asserting that Gator Freight-ways specifically holds that section 440.10 is not limited to construction cases....

...rsion of the statute, make specific reference in certain provisions to construction contracts, thereby creating an ambiguity within the statute which would allow the court to find that it was the intent of the Legislature to limit the application of section 440.10(l)(b) to the construction industry....

...service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully *108 or unlawfully employed, and includes, but is not limited to, aliens and minors. Further, section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), the portion of chapter 440 that creates a “statutory employer,” states: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the emp...

...secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Finally, the first line of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2006), states: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin,...

...Therefore, it would be clear error for this court to find such ambiguity as a basis for inferring a legislative intent contrary to the clearly expressed language of the statute. Accordingly, we approve in full the decision of the trial court and hold that King was a statutory employer of Felder pursuant to section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...Coral waived any right to a claim in his employee agreement; (2) Carpentry was entitled to workers' compensation immunity under either the common law borrowed servant doctrine or statutory special employment, pursuant to section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2005); (3) Carpentry was immune from liability under section 440.10(1)(b) because Tractor was a subcontractor of Carpentry at the time of Mr....

...Count I of the Amended Complaint is based on a claim for statutory indemnity from Pioneer Electric for benefits, costs and fees incurred by ALS in extinguishing its liability for payment of workers' compensation *1340 benefits to Pioneer Electric's employee under Florida Statute § 440.10(1)(b)(1)....

...Workers' Compensation Exclusion As to American States' claim that it is entitled to final summary judgment on the basis of the workers' compensation exclusion in the insurance policy at issue, the Court again agrees. Under Florida Ins. Guaranty Assoc. v. Revoredo, 698 So.2d 890 (Fla.App.3d Dist.1997), Florida Statutes § 440.10(1) does not make the statutory employer-employee relationship contingent on the securing of workers' compensation for an employee....

...ory employers under the provisions of Florida's Workers Compensation statutes, which is a requisite for workers compensation immunity. 2 ... Northstar did not sublet part of its contract work to a subcontractor in the context of Florida Statute [§] 440.10, because Northstar did not have a contractual relationship with the Defendant Capri or any other subcontractor and therefore it could not be in any type of vertical subcontractor relationship with it, making workers compensation immunity inapplicable to it .......

...st FP & L for damages arising out of injuries incurred on the job in question. We reject this contention as the Workers' Compensation Law does not immunize FP & L under the facts of this case because FP & L was not a contractor within the meaning of section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1985), but a third party....

...ithin the limitations of F.S. § 440.13(3), F.S.A., the physician is entitled to payment of the appropriate amount for his services. This does not mean, however, that the physician may independently bring a claim before the JIC. In this regard, F.S. § 440.10(1), F.S.A., is controlling....

...3d DCA 2003) (holding the subcontract relationship made the main contractor a statutory employer of subcontractor's employees, and where subcontractor had secured worker's compensation for its employees and paid benefits to injured employee, contractor was immune to wrongful death suit); see also *376 § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...In this instance, Banyai's walking down a hallway while still on shift after working with a patient was incidental to the performance of duties. The order ruling that Carnegie Gardens was not entitled to worker's compensation immunity is reversed. REVERSED. SAWAYA, C.J., and TORPY, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such co...

...sation immunity. Because defendant was not plaintiffs direct employer, defendant could only be immune from plaintiffs negligence lawsuit based on workers’ compensation immunity if defendant could be considered a contractor within the meaning of subsection 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995)....

...engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to the employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(l)(b) (emphasis supplied). Thus, the determination of the issue here involves a question of statutory interpretation. In Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954), our supreme court defined a contractor, within the meaning of section 440.10, as one who has a “primary obligation under a contract, which it passes on to another” to perform....

...Arguing that it was discharging a common law duty to provide security services to hotel guests, the defendant claimed that it was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as the plaintiffs statutory employer. However, the first district court rejected this argument, as we do here. The first district construed subsection 440.10(l)(b) as an expression of legislative intent that the sublet work must be an obligation included within a promissory agreement between the contractor and a third party....

...ranted a broader statutory employer immunity by creating statutory employer status in any circumstance in which a business engages a subcontractor to perform a part of the business’ regular trade or work. Rabon, 693 So.2d at 1130 . Finding that subsection 440.10(l)(b) requires that the contractor sublet an obligation that is part of a contract, express or implied-in-faet, the first district held that discharging an obligation imposed purely by statute or common law does not meet the requiremen...

...Hammond, of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, P.A., Orlando, for appellant. W. Marvin Hardy, III, of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, P.A., Orlando, for appellees. SHARP, Judge. Williams appeals from a summary final judgment denying him any recovery because he was barred from suing the appellees by sections 440.10 and 440.11 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, Florida Statutes (1973)....

...§ 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1973). [1] Employers are required to secure compensation for employees, and where a contractor sublets part of his contract work, the employees of a subcontractor are *813 deemed to be employed in one and the same business. § 440.10(1), Fla....

...Ploof Transfer Co., Inc., 344 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1978); Kolarik v. Rodgers Bros. Service, Inc., 268 So.2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 272 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1973). Because our interpretation of sections 440.10 and 440.11 immunizes this subcontractor from suit in derogation of Williams' right to sue for his injuries, we believe this issue is a matter of great public importance....

...IS EMPLOYER'S SUBCONTRACTOR FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LATTER'S EMPLOYEE? AFFIRMED and CERTIFIED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, JR., and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 440.11(1) provides: The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third party tort-feasor and to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recove...

...In such action the defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by negligence of a fellow servant, that the employee assumed the risk of his employment, or that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee. [2] Section 440.10(1) provides: Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under §§ 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16....

...VMS, arguing that VMS was estopped from claiming workers’ compensation immunity and from asserting comparative negligence because VMS had failed to notify its workers’ compensation carrier that Alfonso had been injured. The trial court agreed; we reverse. Section 440.10(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes provides that “[e]very employer . . . shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment to his or her employees . . . the compensation payable under ss. 440.13, 440.15, and 440.16.” § 440.10(1)(a), Fla....

...(2013) (emphasis added). The liability imposed on employers to “secure 3 payment” of compensation requires only that an employer insure and keep insured the payment of those workers’ compensation benefits guaranteed by section 440.10(1)(a); it does not impose a duty to actually pay benefits to an employee: (1) Every employer shall secure the payment of compensation under this chapter: (a) By insuring and keeping insured the payment of such...

...r[ed] a policy of workers’ compensation insurance that covered the injured employee”). 4  Because section 440.11(1) of the Florida Statutes makes the liability to secure compensation imposed by section 440.10(1) the exclusive form of liability imposed by Chapter 440 on an employer, once an employer acquires and maintains workers’ compensation insurance for the benefit of its employees, it becomes immune from suit....

...See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2013)1; Walker v. United Steel Works, Inc., 606 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (“Section 440.11(1) makes [the] liability to secure compensation the exclusive form of liability of the employer.”). Section 440.10(1)(b) extends the liability imposed by section 440.10(1)(a) on employers to secure insurance coverage for the payment of workers’ compensation benefits to contractors requiring them to secure coverage for the employees of subcontractors engaged on sublet contract work: In...

...e employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the 1 Section 440.11(1) provides: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, d...

...(2013). 5  same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...tion insurance coverage and when an employer subcontracts part of its work to another, that contractor/employer is liable only for assuring that workers’ compensation coverage has been secured for the subcontractor’s employees: Section 440.10 establishes the concept of “statutory employer” for contractors who sublet part of their work to others. Section 440.11 provides that the liability established in section 440.11 is “exclusive.” The effect of section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor performing part of the work of a contractor fails to secure payment of compensation, the contractor is liable for same....

...inst its contingent liability as “statutory employer” in case the subcontractor fails to do so. The exclusiveness of liability provided for by section 440.11 extends to an employer’s “liability” as defined in section 440.10. Thus a contractor who sublets part of its work to a subcontractor, being liable to secure coverage for employees of its subcontractor, is also immune from suit by such employees when such coverage has been secured....

...2d 910, 912-13 (Fla. 1981) overruled on other grounds by Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1983) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Miami-Dade County v. Acosta, 757 So. 2d 539, 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“It is clear that section 440.10(1)(b) places on the statutory employer [(the contractor)] ....

...2d at 912). In this case, there is no dispute that VMS secured coverage for ABC’s employees by virtue of the insurance coverage secured by its subcontractor, ABC. Having satisfied this obligation, VMS was not liable for injuries sustained by any of ABC’s or Contreras’ employees while at work. See § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...’s employee is at odds with the 10 opinion herein. We therefore recede from that statement in Catalfumo and confirm the determination made herein that to benefit from the immunity conferred by sections 440.10 and 440.11 of the Florida Statutes, a contractor need only ensure that workers’ compensation insurance coverage has been secured for each worker for whom it is the statutory employer; the contractor need not ensure that actual payment of...

...f the Workmen’s Compensation Act where said injured employee has elected to receive and has been paid workmen’s compensation benefits (furnished by the prime contractor) under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes.” Applicable to the present appeal is section 440.10(1), Florida statutes, F.S.A., which specifically provides in part: “ * * * In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontr...

...loyer fails to secure payment of compensation, an injured employee may elect to claim compensation or to maintain an action at law for damages. Plaintiff insists that the subcontractors were third party tort feasors and that the quoted provisions of section 440.10(1) together with section 440.11 should be interpreted so as to confine to the general contractor the statutory immunity from a common law action....

...ctor. Plaintiff was precluded from recovering from the subcontractor by reason of the exclusive provision of the workmen’s compensation law. Certiorari was denied without opinion in Fla., 127 So.2d 679 . We may observe that the manifest purpose of section 440.10(1) is to afford protection to emplees of irresponsible and uninsured subcontractors by imposing ultimate liability on the general contractor, who has it within his power to insist upon adequate compensation protection for employees of his subcontractors. Fidelity Const. Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 612 . From the cited cases, as well as from the language of section 440.10(1), it is seen that all workers employed by the general contractor as well as by his subcontractors are deemed to be common employees or statutory fellow servants and *616 that the contractor is liable for and shall secare payment of c...

...By voluntarily electing to accept the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, the employee relinquishes his right to sue his employer regardless of whether or not the employer has directly caused the injury. In 1971 the legislature made the liability of the employer as prescribed in § 440.10 exclusive as to third-party tortfeasors....

...igence or contributory negligence of the injured employee, except if the injury was occasioned primarily by the intoxication of the employee or by the willful intention of the employee to injure or kill himself or another. See, F.S., §§ 440.09 and 440.10 F.S.A....

...A contractor who sublets work to a subcontractor becomes liable for the payment of compensation to the subcontractor's employees if the subcontractor fails to secure worker's compensation insurance. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Revoredo , 698 So.2d 890 , 890-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Fla. Stat. § 440.10 (1)(b) )....

...These facts are undisputed by the parties. See supra Section I.B. Accordingly, Lopez was Subcontractor's "statutory employee," and when Subcontractor failed to carry workers' compensation insurance, Lopez became UCE's "statutory employee." See Fla. Stat. § 440.10 (1)(b) ; Revoredo , 698 So.2d at 890-92 ; Motchkavitz v....

...ADH Building Contractors, Inc . It is not my purpose to unilaterally change such a long-standing construction of chapter 440, but it is noteworthy that none of the cited cases, nor any other Florida case of which we are aware, has ever considered the precise language of section 440.10, the section that imposes liability on the employer under the act, as it relates to section 440.28. Section 440.10 reads in pertinent part: (1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter ......

...440.13, of the compensation payable under ss. 440.13, 440.15, and 440.16. (Emphasis added.) Of course, section 440.13 establishes the employee's right to receive remedial medical treatment, while sections 440.15 provides for compensation for disability. Thus, it is evident that section 440.10 treats the payment of medical benefits under 440.13 as "compensation" payable by the employer under the act, and is to that extent seemingly in conflict with the definition of compensation in 440.02(6)....

...Therefore, it can be reasonably postulated that unless the word "compensation" as used in section 440.28 is construed to have the same meaning as and to be coextensive in application to the employer's obligation to pay the "compensation" required by section 440.10, which includes payments for medical benefits, the statutory scheme presents a patent ambiguity as to the meaning of the act when read as a whole....

...*1139 To so construe the act, however, is beyond the power of this court because it would require overturning or receding from a line of decisions of the Florida Supreme Court. It would be appropriate for that court to reconsider those cases in light of section 440.10, as this ambiguity inherent in the language of that section has never been addressed by either this court or the supreme court in any prior case....

...h her employment— such as a defect in the premises — Claimant could not establish that her injury arose out of employment because the accident could have happened elsewhere. This was error; the JCC’s reasoning overlooks the express language of section 440.10(2), Florida Statutes (2011), providing that “compensation shall be payable irrespective of fault as a cause for the injury,” and the rationale underlying this court’s holdings in Caputo and Walker , that where an unexplained fall...

Stat. § 440.10(1)(b). The Florida Supreme Court has explained that the “effect of section 440.10 is that

...We agree with Bryan that it has independent standing to bring a claim for payment for medical services it alleges are due from the E/C under the Workers' Compensation Law. See Rebich v. Burdine's, 417 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (interpreting 1974 amendment to section 440.10(1) as creating independent standing on behalf of physician to bring an action against insurance company for payment of bills); see also § 440.13(14), Fla....

...Patrick Pyjek appeals a final summary judgment disposing of his gross negligence lawsuit against ValleyCrest Landscape Development, Inc. As a matter of law, the trial court found ValleyCrest immune from liability under the exclusivity provision of Florida’s workers’ compensation statute. See § 440.10(1)(e)(2), Fla....

...ValleyCrest, another subcontractor on the project, also had a crew at the site planting palm trees. Mr. Pyjek was injured when a palm tree fell on him. Mr. Pyjek alleged that Valley-Crest’s conduct in planting the palm trees amounted to gross negligence excepted from the workers’ compensation exclusivity provision. See § 440.10(1)(e)(2); see also § 440.11(1)(b)(2)....

...wed; evidence must be viewed in the manner most favorable to the opposing party, without resolving conflicts in the evidence). We must, therefore, reverse. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. SILBERMAN, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur. . § 440.10....

...Villalta was employed as a drywall finisher by L & W. Mr. Villalta was thus employed by the general contractor’s sub subcontractor, and Cornn International’s sub contractor. Upon that vertical relationship, Cornn International became Mr. Villalta’s statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, and was thus entitled to the immunity from civil suit granted by section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....

...Stat. The evidence submitted by the appellant did not show the commission of an intentional tort in this case. The appellant relied on a theory of gross negligence and asserted that the suit could be brought against Cornn International pursuant to section 440.10(l)(e)2., Florida Statutes, which provides section 440.11 immunity for a subcontractor sued by the employee of another subcontractor, unless the first subcontractor’s own gross negligence was the major contributing cause of the injury. However, reliance on the gross negligence provision in section 440.10(l)(e)2., ignores the distinction between a vertical subcontracting relationship as described in Chase v. Tenbroeck, 399 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and upon which section 440.11(1) immunity applies, and the horizontal type of subcontractor relationship to which section 440.10(l)(e)2....

...In contrast, a horizontal relationship exists between subcontractors engaged on the same construction project but under different subcontracts outside the vertical chain of a contractor to subcontractor to sub-subcontractor. The immunity granted to subcontractors outside that vertical chain is governed by section 440.10(1), including the section 440.10(l)(e)2....

...onal was in a vertical subcontracting relationship with L & W and was Mr. Villalta’s statutory employer for workers’ compensation benefits, Cornn International was entitled to the section 440.11(1) immunity. The gross negligence exception in section 440.10(l)(e)2....

...lity benefits, and attorneys' fees. We respectfully disagree. There is no question that a general contractor is responsible for providing workers' compensation benefits to any employee of an uninsured subcontractor working *1186 on its job site. See § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...r workers' compensation coverage for those employees at the job site who do not meet the requirements of a "leased employee" under the Lease Agreement. Furthermore, we reject the JCC's contention that Claimant is a "statutory employee" of Crum under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...Jack Gibney, Jacksonville, for appellee. PER CURIAM. T.E. James Construction Company and its servicing agent appeal a workers' compensation order by which the claimant was awarded temporary total disability benefits, payable by T.E. James as the statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes....

...bstantiate T.E. James' assertion of a conspiracy to deprive it of actual notice. Because the subcontractor did not have workers' compensation coverage in effect when the claimant was injured, T.E. James became the claimant's statutory employer under section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes....

...Workmen’s Compensation Law and charging defendants with negligence in several particulars resulting in the injury. Section 440.11, Florida Statutes 1959, F. S.A., provides: “Exclusiveness of liability. The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law...

...Mathis argues that the trial court erred in its determination that workers’ compensation immunity applies to Sacred Heart under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes. Because there is no evidence that Sacred Heart subcontracted “contract work” within the meaning of section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes, we reverse and remand for further proceedings....

...r section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes. This appeal followed. II. Whether the workers’ compensation immunity of section 440.11(1) applies to Sacred Heart depends on whether Sacred Heart was a so-called “statutory employer” of Mathis pursuant to section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontra...

...Inn of Lake City, Inc., 693 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Antinarelli v. Ocean Suite Hotel, 642 So.2d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Sacred Heart argues that its patients were the third party for whom it sublet “contract work” to Coverall. “It is well established ... that to satisfy section 440.10(l)(b), the contractual obligation may be implied, and does not need to be pursuant to an express provision in a written contract.” Mitchell v. Osceola Cty. Sch. Bd., 159 So.3d 334, 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Rabon, 693 So.2d at 1129 ). In other words, the “contract work” to which section 440.10(l)(b) refers may arise from an implied in fact contract....

...f the contract between a contractor and a third party “controls the resolution of the statutory employment relationship.” Id. In order for the hotel’s obligation to provide safe premises to provide a basis for statutory employer immunity under section 440.10(l)(b), it had to arise “primarily from its contract with its customers,” rather than its “general duty to exercise reasonable care.” Id. “Because there is no evidence of such a contractual obligation sublet" to Wells Fargo, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on statutory employer immunity under section 440.10(l)(b).” Id....

a statutory employer within the meaning of section 440.10(l)(b). While an individual property owner who

...and the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, shall be liable for and shall secure the payment to his employees of the compensation payable under Sections 440.13, 440.15 and 440.16. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes. The liability of an employer prescribed in Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee....

...aining does not authorize an agreement that is in disregard of other laws. United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 , 14 L. Ed.2d 626 (1965). The bargaining agreements relied upon by the City totally ignore Sections 440.10(1), 440.11(1), 440.15(2) and (3), 440.21 and 440.22, Florida Statutes; Rule 17 of the Florida Workmen’s Compensation Rules of Procedure, and the decisions in the Schel and Miller cases....

...Zeiger, which involved same-project contractors, is distinguishable because it stands for the proposition that a subcontractor is not liable to the employees of another contractor; rather, the subcontractor is protected by the exclusive liability provisions of section 440.11. Zeiger, 16 So.3d at 913 ; see also § 440.10(1)(e)....

...Defendant argues that the decedent was a “statutory employee” of Mid-Continent, and therefore an “employee” under the Bodily injury to an employee exclusion of the policy. The so-called “statutory employee” is a conceptualization stemming from the language of Section 440.10 of the Florida Workers Compensation Act....

...As noted by the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida in Florida Insurance Guaranty Ass’n, Inc. v. Revoredo, “[t]he Florida Supreme Court ... made it clear that subcontractors’ employees ... are employees of the contractor and are protected by the workers’ compensation law, stating: ‘Section 440.10 establishes the concept of ‘statutory employer’ for contractors who sublet part of their work to others.’” 698 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (citing Motchkavitz v....

...n independent and general contractors], but speaks only of ‘contractors.’ A contractor is one under a contractual obligation to perform some work for another.” 407 So.2d at 914 (internal citations omitted). Revoredo is careful to note that “[section 440.10(1) does not make the statutory employer-employee relationship contingent on the securing of workers’ compensation for the employee.” 698 So.2d at 892 ....

...The cases also involved the application of a workers' compensation lien, and under section 627.736(4), benefits received under workers' compensation are specifically credited against PIP benefits. Workers' compensation benefits are also a primary compensation for work-related motor vehicle accidents. See § 440.10(1)(a), Fla....

...Birmingham of Fulmer, LeRoy, Albee, Baumann & Glass, P.L.C., Orlando, Attorneys for Appellees. THOMAS, J. In the case we have before us, Claimant appeals an order from the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) denying his claim that Appellee Rinker Transport (Rinker) is his statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...Claimant argued below that Rinker had a contractual duty with third parties to haul materials and sublet a part of these duties to Norma Deal. Accordingly, Claimant believes that Norma Deal was a subcontractor of Rinker; thus, Rinker qualifies as his statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b). This designation is important because a general contractor is responsible for providing workers' compensation benefits to any employee of an *819 uninsured subcontractor working on its job sites. See § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...but for the wrong reasons, it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record."). We write to explain that the proper inquiry can be found in both the language of the statute and in prior decisions of this court. Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), provides in pertinent part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or s...

...(Emphasis added.) This section is designed to ensure that employees engaged in the same contract work are covered under workers' compensation, regardless of whether they are employees of the general contractor or its subcontractor. Andrews v. Drywall Enters., 569 So.2d 821, 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). "To be a contractor under [section 440.10(1)(b)], one must have a contractual obligation to perform some work for another." Miami Herald Publ'g v....

...m Point A to Point B, not to ensure that its trailers were in working order. Thus, despite the fact that Claimant may have been working on a Rinker trailer at the time of his injuries, he was not "engaged in such contract work," as promulgated under section 440.10(1)(b), or involved in the "primary obligation" passed from Rinker to Norma Deal, as required by our case law....

...hen he fell 24 feet from a scaffold to a concrete floor. His contention here is that the appellee general contractor is liable for payment of compensation to him because, as a subcontractor, he is deemed an "employee" of the general contractor under § 440.10, Florida Statutes....

...(e.s.) Also, § 440.02(2)(d)4 states: (d) The term `employee' shall not include ... 4. Any officer of a corporation who elects to be exempt from coverage under this chapter. Appellant's contention with respect to this language is that the statutory employee provision of § 440.10 is an overriding "exception to the exclusion under definition of `employee' of corporate officers who exempt themselves from coverage." We find no pertinent precedent or persuasive reasoning for that view, or for the alternative reliance up...

...whether such lessor might otherwise be responsible to the employee under the doctrine of dangerous instrumentality or respondeat superior. Respondent argues, however, that the sole issue in Smith v. Ryder was whether the immunity of a lessee under F.S. 440.10 and 440.11, F.S.A....

..., does not inure to the lessor of the vehicle. The principal point involved here seems to be whether the mere leasing of equipment, with nothing more, is enough to bring the lessor within the umbrella of immunity provided to the lessee-employer by F.S. 440.10 or 440.11, F.S.A....

...e's employee was injured by lessor's employee actually working on the job. The main thrust of the decision is that the injured employee and the allegedly negligent employee fall within the common employment doctrine, and that the immunity granted by 440.10 extends to the lessor-employer who could not be held liable as a third party tort-feasor, since the obligation to secure compensation benefits for the common employees rested with the lessee, and once these benefits had been procured the immunity extended to the lessor of the equipment....

...de coverage and a contractor's immunity inures to his subcontractors. "The mere leasing of equipment or the mere sale and delivery of materials to a general contractor would not grant the privilege of exclusive remedy to the lessor or vendor because § 440.10 does not *754 impose upon a general contractor the duty to secure compensation to employees of lessors or vendors * * *." (Emphasis Supplied) In Zenchak v....

...tive negligence and falls within the rationale of the Goldstein case and the dictum in Street v. Safway to the effect that the mere leasing of equipment to a general contractor would not grant the privilege of exclusive remedy to the lessor, because 440.10 does not impose upon the general contractor the duty to secure compensation to the employees of lessors....

...avor of the pleader." Id. (citations omitted). Although we find that the Appellants stated a claim for common law indemnity against Double A, we affirm the order dismissing this claim because it is precluded by the pleading and proof requirements in section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), which is part of Florida's Workers' Compensation Act....

...PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683, 686 (Fla.2000). The Florida Legislature has provided limited exceptions to the workers' compensation scheme. See, e.g., § 440.11(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007) (the intentional tort exception). One of those exceptions is embodied in section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, which provides horizontal immunity for certain subcontractors, as follows: A subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work is not liable for the payment...

...e solely vicarious for the wrongdoing of another. Gen. Portland Land Dev. Co. v. Stevens, 395 So.2d 1296, 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (discussing Houdaille, 374 So.2d 490). We conclude that it is a legal impossibility for a gross negligence claim under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes and a common law indemnity claim to be simultaneously successful because each claim requires proof of fault that cannot co-exist with the other claim's requirement....

...See Houdaille, 374 So.2d at 493. Conversely, *912 if the subcontractor is able to prove that a third-party is wholly at fault for the plaintiff's injury, thus satisfying the requirement for common law indemnity, the plaintiff will not succeed in his claim under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes because the subcontractor's own gross negligence is not the major contributing cause of his injury....

...th was a complete defense to the original action. Id. Following the analysis in Houdaille, we hold that the trial court properly dismissed the Appellants' claim for common law indemnity because that claim is precluded by the pleading requirements in section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes....

...us, unnecessary. This outcome does not require the resolution of any factual disputes. To the contrary, we are merely identifying that there is no viable cause of action for third-party common law indemnity where the original action is brought under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes....

...the injuries arose out of the subcontractors' own gross negligence. The legislature stated as much by expressly giving same-project subcontractors protection under the exclusiveness-of-liability provision in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes. See § 440.10(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2007). Same-project subcontractors who are sued under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes will never be required to compensate an employee for the direct fault of another party....

...The circuit court held as a matter of law that Sun 'n Fun was a statutory employer immune from liability under Florida's Workers' Compensation Law because it was a "contractor" that sublet "contract work" to U.S. Security, which, in turn, provided workers' compensation benefits to Ms. Slora. See §§ 440.10(1)(b), .11(1), Fla....

...based on its affirmative defense of workers' compensation immunity. It argued that Ms. Slora's claim to the workers' compensation benefits provided by U.S. Security were the exclusive remedy for her injuries because, although Sun 'n Fun was not Ms. Slora's direct employer, section 440.10(1)(b) extends immunity to a "contractor [that] sublets any part or parts of [its] contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors." Sun 'n Fun's theory was that, under the undisputed facts, section 440.10(1)(b) entitled it to immunity because the certificates of waiver issued by the FAA constituted a contract that imposed an obligation to provide security at the air show, which it subcontracted to U.S....

...n instrument of the parties thereto and the legal effect to be drawn therefrom, the question at issue is one of law only, and ordinarily is determinable by summary judgment," unless the terms of the instrument are ambiguous). Under section 440.10, every employer is legally obligated to secure the payment of medical and disability benefits for any employee who is injured at work. § 440.10(1)(a)....

...3d 766, 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The obligation to secure payment of workers' compensation benefits and concomitant immunity from tort liability extends not only to direct employers but also to certain "statutory employers." Id. In that connection, section 440.10(1)(b) provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor ....

...In this workers' compensation appeal, we review the order of the judge of compensation claims (JCC) which awarded benefits upon the finding that the appellant, Orlando Sentinel, was the statutory employer of the appellee/claimant, Donny Wong-Chow, pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...her Bryan Wong-Chow had workers' compensation coverage at the time the claimant suffered a work related injury. Based upon those findings, the JCC concluded that claimant Donny Wong-Chow was a "statutory employee" of the Orlando Sentinel pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, and was deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment as the contractor, the Orlando Sentinel. See Miami Herald v. Hatch, 617 So.2d at 380. It appears that the Orlando Sentinel was a contractor as contemplated by section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes....

...We find that the record supports the finding that the Orlando Sentinel passed on its primary obligation under its contracts with advertisers to the independent contractor, Bill McKinney, and, in turn, a subcontractor, the appellee's brother, Bryan Wong-Chow. Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes, (1991) provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on...

...e and the same business or establishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to the employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. (emphasis added). Reading section 440.10 in pari materia with the entire workers' compensation act, this court has previously concluded that [t]he purpose of section 440.10 is to insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking......

...Claimant could not establish an increased risk of harm associated with her employment . . . Claimant could not establish that the injury arose out of employment because the accident could have happened elsewhere.” 100 So. 3d at 782. We held that such a conclusion would implicate section 440.10(2), Florida Statutes, which provides that, absent narrow exceptions, “[c]ompensation shall be payable irrespective of fault as a cause for the injury.” Again citing Walker, we stated, “Thus, in the absence of any medical evidence...

...With certain exceptions, worker’s compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy for employees who are injured on the job, and their employers are entitled to liability immunity for such injuries. The concept of “employer” has been broadened in an important respect. In the construction law context section 440.10(l)(a) and (b) define what has been described as “statutory employees.” Section 440.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes provides in this regard that: Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter shall be liable for and shall secure, the payment to his or her employees,.... Any contractor or subcontractor who engages in any public or private construction in the state shall secure and maintain compensation for his or her employees under this chapter as provided in s. 440.38. Section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes, then provides in pertinent part: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a contractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcon...

...By sublet, the Legislature essentially meant to “underlet,” and the effect of subletting is to pass on to another an obligation under a contract for which the person so “subletting” is primarily obligated. See Cuero v. Ryland Group, Inc., 849 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 855 So.2d 621 (Fla.2003). Thus, section 440.10, Florida Statutes (2008), is designed to ensure that employees engaged in the same contract work are covered under worker’s compensation, regardless of whether they are employees of the general contractor or any of its subcontractors....

...1968); Street v. Safway Steel Scaffold Co., 148 So.2d 38, 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962) (the mere leasing of equipment or the mere sale and delivery of materials to a general contractor would not grant the privilege of exclusive remedy to the lessor or vendor because § 440.10 does not impose upon a general contractor the duty to secure compensation to employees of lessors or vendors even though a vendor may render some services or labor in delivering materials to the job site)....

...We have jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. . See Cuero v. Ryland Group, Inc., 849 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 855 So.2d 621 (Fla.2003). To be a contractor, and thus a statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10, one must have a contractual obligation to perform some work for another....

...Central Florida Lumber also argues that Judge Arnold was precluded from revisiting Judge Holder's holding that workers' compensation immunity was not affected by a contractor's status as unlicensed under section 489.128. Worker's Compensation Law Background Section 440.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that employers under that chapter must provide payment of workers' compensation for the provision of services under that chapter....

...If a contractor subcontracts part of his work, then the employees of both the contractor and subcontractor are "deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment" and the contractor is liable for payment of workers' compensation to those employees. § 440.10(1)(b)....

...We reject the Plaintiffs' argument that section 489.128 operates to somehow extinguish the statutory employer relationship. In order for Doug Ross and Central Florida Lumber to become statutory employers, they must each subcontract part of their obligation under the contract. § 440.10(1)(b)....

...ions of the contract under section 489.128, it does not extinguish the contractor/subcontractor relationship or otherwise affect the application of chapter 440. Simply put, a contractor's status as a statutory employer arises from the application of section 440.10(1)(b) and is not a right that arises from the terms of the contract....

...WCI Cmtys., Inc., 869 So.2d 1210, 1219 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The Plaintiffs argue that, being void, Central Florida Lumber's subcontract agreements did not create the contractual obligations required for Central Florida Lumber to be a statutory employer under section 440.10....

NIMMONS, Judge. In connection with a January 1987 industrial accident, the claimant appeals the deputy commissioner’s ruling that he is not a statutory employee of Lewis & Associates, the contractor, under Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1986)....

...e Lewis & Associates was the general contractor. Appellant therefore took the position that as an employee of a subcontractor which had not secured compensation for him, he was entitled to compensation from Lewis’ insurance carrier pursuant to Section 440.10(1). The deputy rejected this contention on the ground that R & D Cleaning, Incorporated, did in fact have a valid insurance policy in effect and that the appellant was therefore not a statutory employee under Section 440.10(1)....

...In Boyd-Scarp, the claimant was a sole proprietor of the subcontractor who had chosen not to affirmatively elect coverage for himself under the Act. In each of these cases the subcontractor had a valid workers’ compensation policy in effect at the time of the claimant’s accident, and we held that Section 440.10(1) was not operative to provide for coverage for the claimant....

...Boyd-Scarp and Vallina , however, are distinguishable in one crucial respect, which is that they were decided on the basis that the claimant was not an employee of the subcontractor and therefore could not be considered a statutory employee of the contractor, since Section 440.10(1) specifically holds the contractor responsible for employees of the subcontractor....

...ent. As we recognized in Boyd-Scarp at 163, it was therefore the contractor’s responsibility to provide coverage “to all employees of a subcontractor when such employees have not been provided coverage by the subcontractor.” Under the terms of Section 440.10(1), in order to avoid responsibility for coverage of the claimant, the statutory employer must demonstrate that the claimant is otherwise covered by a valid workers’ compensation policy....

...to. 5 We decline to reach appellant’s second point because it was not addressed by the deputy in his order. Accordingly, the order is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . Section 440.10(1) provides in part: * * * In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor, or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract...

...(“It is the intent of the Legislature that the Workers’ Compensation Law be interpreted so as to assure the quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to an injured worker and to facilitate the worker’s return to gainful reemployment at a reasonable cost to the employer.” (emphasis supplied)); § 440.10(1)(a), Fla....

...has only those powers expressly provided by statute.” 35 So.3d at 106-07 . We concluded that “as the JCC recognized at the final hearing, had the Legislature intended to give the JCC the authority to sanction an E/C or its attorney for violating section 440.105, it could have easily done so as it did in section 440.09(4) for fraud by employees.” Id....

...eated potential liabilities for the Employer; thus, the Employer’s interests, as recognized by the JCC, diverged from those of the Carrier. For example, an employer has a legal duty to provide workers’ compensation benefits to its employees. See § 440.10(l)(a), Fla....

...Failure to do so can subject the employer to a loss of certain defenses should the injured employee opt to file suit in circuit court on account of the accident. § 440.06, Fla. Stat. (2010) (“Every employer who fails to secure the payment of compensation, as provided in s. 440.10, by failing to meet the requirements of s....

...t, that the employee assumed the risk of his or her employment, or that the injury was due to the comparative negligence of the employee.”). The Employer’s interests were not identical to those of the Carrier. Indeed, under the plain language of section 440.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), the Employer, here a corporation, is liable to provide Claimant’s medical services and compensation, not the insurance carrier that collected a premium to provide those benefits....

...The order here was at least partially adverse to the Employer, because, even though the Employer may benefit because its premiums would not be affected (because there was no loss to the Carrier), it has also been exposed to other liabilities and it remains liable for Claimant’s injuries. § 440.10(l)(a), Fla....

...(1)," Florida Statutes (2010). The Camachos filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of workers' compensation immunity, and in response, Wert and Rubber Applications argued that they were entitled to subcontractor statutory immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), which they also referred to as horizontal immunity....

...er of Rubber Applications, that Mosaic was also the statutory employer of Mid-State, and that Rubber Applications and Mosaic were dependent horizontal subcontractors of Mosaic working on the same project. Wert and Rubber Applications alleged that section 440.10(1)(e) therefore applied....

..., arguing that as a question of law, the unrelated works exception did not apply to a claim of immunity between two subcontractors in a horizontal relationship, as opposed to a vertical relationship. Wert and Rubber Applications argued that under section 440.10(1)(e), they were immune from liability because Camacho did not prove that Wert was grossly -3- negligent....

...They further argued that even if the unrelated works exception applied, both Wert's and Camacho's employers were engaged in related works. The Camachos moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the subcontractors are considered statutory coemployees of Mosaic for purposes of workers' compensation immunity under section 440.10(1)(b), but that an exception to the immunity applies under section 440.11 because the subcontractors were engaged in unrelated works....

...This exception is known as the unrelated works exception. In order to establish that Camacho and Wert were coemployees of the same employer so that the unrelated works exception in section 440.11(1) would apply, -5- Camacho relied on section 440.10(1)(b), which addresses contractors and subcontractors: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of...

...and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Both sides proceed on the premise that Mosaic is a contractor under section 440.10, but they disagree on whether subsection (1)(b) of section 440.10 applies to the relationship between subcontractors Rubber Applications and Mid-State....

...or, who had a contract with airline to provide cleaning services at airport, and applying unrelated works exception because contractor's employee was coemployee with subcontractor's employee). Wert claims that if the statutory employer concept in section 440.10(1)(b) were to apply to this horizontal relationship between Rubber Applications and Mid-State, it would render -6- meaningless the immunity for horizontal subcontractor relationships provided in section 440.10(1)(e). Section 440.10(1)(e) provides as follows: A subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work is not liable for the payment of compensation to the e...

...sub-subcontractor. Villalta, 110 So. 3d at 953; see also Ramcharitar v. Derosins, 35 So. 3d 94, 96-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (explaining the statutory history of vertical and horizontal immunity). Vertical relationships as set forth in section 440.10(1)(b) are subject to the liability in section 440.10 and immunity in section 440.11, while horizontal relationships are subject to the liability in section 440.10 and immunity in section 440.10(1)(e). See Villalta, 110 So. 3d at 953; see also Amorin v. Gordon, 996 So. 2d 913, 915-18 (Fla. 4th -7- DCA 2008) (explaining vertical relationships under section 440.10(1)(b) and horizontal relationships under section 440.10(1)(e)).3 Based on the above-cited law, we agree that section 440.10(1)(b) does not apply here to create an employment relationship of any kind between Rubber Applications and Mid-State....

...While Rubber Applications and Mid-State were both subcontractors of Mosaic and thus employees of Mosaic, they were not part of the same "contract work" with Mosaic. No vertical relationship existed between Rubber Applications and Mid-State, and therefore, section 440.10(1)(b) does not "deem[] [them] to be employed in one and the same business or establishment." It then follows that because they are not employees of the same employer, the unrelated works exception in section 440.11 does not apply....

...5th DCA 2003) ("[A] motion for directed verdict should be granted only where no view of the evidence, or inferences made therefrom, could support a verdict for the nonmoving party and the trial court determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for that party." (citations 3 "Section 440.10(1)(b) [requires contractors] to secure coverage for the employees of subcontractors engaged on sublet contract work." VMS, Inc. v. Alfonso, 147 So. 3d 1071, 1073-74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). When such coverage has been secured, the contractor is immune from suit. Id. And section 440.10 requires subcontractors to secure coverage for their employees....

...-8- omitted)). We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the Camachos' complaint for negligence and vicarious liability, in which proceedings Wert and Rubber Applications may assert their defense of horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). We express no opinion on whether Wert and Rubber Applications are entitled to immunity under that standard....

...Wooten, 468 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Likewise, in light of our disposition of this case, the deputy erred in assessing costs against the E/C. See, Section 440.32, Florida Statutes (1981). REVERSED. SHIVERS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur. . See, Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which provides in pertinent part: (1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter ......

PER CURIAM. We affirm the final order denying benefits in this workers’ compensation case on *1288 grounds Valentin Sanchez failed to prove that The Marseilles Hotel was his “statutory employer.” See § 440.10(l)(b), Fla....

69L-6.019(6)(a)-(c) (2012); see also Fla. Stat. § 440.10(l)(g)(l). The parties do not dispute that Clean

...Normandy instead sought contribution from the general contractor at the work site, Jimerico, Inc., who otherwise would be 2 considered Mr. Sorto’s statutory employer and responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage for the injury. See § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...Then, in seeking the coverage, J.A.M.’s agent didn’t disclose his serious injury to the insurer. Under these circumstances, Florida law doesn’t permit the insurer Normandy to be left holding the bag for Mr. Sorto’s known loss, but locates coverage for his claim in the policy of the general contractor. See 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...aw under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991), since it had provided workers' compensation benefits by paying the insurance premiums pursuant to the agreement. In his order denying the motion for summary judgment, the trial judge noted that under section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1991), every "employer," as defined by the workers' compensation law, is required to provide workers' compensation benefits and that under section 440.11 an "employer" is immune from liability for on-the-job injuries...

...ust be either an "employer" or a "contractor," as those terms are defined in the workers' compensation law. The trial court found that Watkins, not P & G, was Mann's employer, and that P & G was not a "contractor" as that term is used under sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes....

...Here, P & G has a contractual relationship not with Mann, but with Watkins, Mann's employer. Therefore, the provisions of section 440.04 as interpreted by Mandico have no applicability here. P & G also argues that it is immune from Mann's suit as the statutory employer of Mann under section 440.10....

...v. Brown, 626 So.2d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In the instant case, the record is not susceptible of the interpretation that P & G is a "contractor" or "general contractor," such that it could be considered the statutory employer of Mann under section 440.10....

...NOTES [1] This is an appealable non-final order under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(vi), Fla.R.App.P., and Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc., 605 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1992). [2] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any thirdparty tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to...

follows: “The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability

workers’ compensation benefits to him under section 440.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), and thus that

...ch conclusion is incontestable when one considers the very nature of the Workers’ Compensation Act which is to designate and define the employer’s responsibility to compensate the employee for his or her work related injury, regardless of fault. Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1981); Matthews v....

...compensation immunity. Because the association had a contractual obligation under the relevant declaration of condominium to provide valet services and sublet that obligation to APS, we conclude that the association was Bellorin’s statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2021)....

...Bellorin subsequently filed suit against the association alleging negligence based on premises liability and seeking damages for his injury. The association moved for final summary judgment, asserting that it was Bellorin’s statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b) because it sublet to Bellorin’s employer, APS, its contractual obligation to provide valet services to unit owners....

...ade “no determination on the issue of workers’ compensation immunity”). 5 Harbour Tower Condominium, such that it is entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as Bellorin’s statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b)....

...iness or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b). “For the association to be a contractor (and thus [Bellorin’s] statutory employer) under section 440.10, it must show that it has a contractual obligation to provide [valet] services to the unit owners,” Smith v. Mariner’s Bay Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), and that it “sublet[ ] any part or parts of [the] contract work to a subcontractor,” § 440.10(1)(b). See Mathis v. Sacred Heart Health Sys., Inc., 187 So. 3d 951, 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Miami Herald Publ’g. v. Hatch, 617 So. 2d 380, 382–84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “To be considered a contractor under section 440.10, [the association’s] ‘primary obligation in performing a job or providing a service must arise out of a contract.’” Tampa Elec....

...perty . . . . is purely statutory, not contractual”), and Smith, 789 So. 2d at 1230 (recognizing “that an entity that has a contractual obligation, all or part of which is sublet to another, is not exempt from being a statutory employer under section 440.10 merely because the performance of that obligation is regulated by statute,” but holding that where record did not establish a contract between association and unit owners for security services, condominium association was not statutory employer in security guard’s suit for damages from slip and 9 fall). The association, in turn, “sublet[ ]” this “contract work” to Bellorin’s employer, APS. See § 440.10(1)(b), Fla. Stat. Therefore, because Bellorin’s injury occurred while performing his duties as a valet for APS, the association was Bellorin’s statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), and the association was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity....

...association did not have a contractual obligation to provide valet services to unit owners under section 8(c.) of the declaration of condominium, thereby determining that the association was not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as Bellorin’s statutory employer. See §§ 440.10(1)(b), .11, Fla. Stat....

...comes a "general contractor” with attendant non-delegable duties to provide for the safety of all employees on the project, does he not also at the same time and for the same reasons become a "statutory employer” of subcontractor employees under § 440.10(1), Fla.Stat., with the attendant duty to provide workers’ compensation and with the attendant immunity from suit by such employees? See, e.g., Lingold v....

PER CURIAM. We reverse the trial court’s order of summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding Worker’s Compensation immunity for security guard services. See § 440.10(l)(b), Fla....

.... 77–281 effectively rebuts any argument that retroactive application of the law was intended.”); Ramcharitar v. Derosins, 35 So. 3d 94, 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“On the contrary, the enacting legislation expressly provided that the revisions to section 440.10 were to become effective on January 1, 2004 . . . . The inclusion of this effective date rebuts the suggestion that the 2003 revision of 3 section 440.10 was intended to apply retroactively.”). Federal courts have made this same observation....

contractor will be protected from the application of Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, which would otherwise make

part of the principal contract has been sublet. § 440.10(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). It is absolutely basic,

...355, 360 , 82 S.Ct. 780, 784 , 7 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962). . Pompano, as required by its contract with Futch, had covered Penton with workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with Florida’s Workers' Compensation Law, Fla.Stat. §§ 440.01-440.60 (1987). Fla.Stat. § 440.10(1) provides in pertinent part: (1) Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, [such as Pompano,] ... shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment to his employees, ... of the compensation payable under ss. 440.13 [medical services and supplies], 440.15 [compensation for disability], and 440.16 [compensation for death], Fla.Stat. § 440.10(1) (1987)....

...Penton’s remedy against Pompano — and Futch and Futch Leasing, as well — under Florida tort law for the injuries he had sustained was exclusively that provided by the state’s workers’ compensation statute. Fla.Stat. § 440.11(1) provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third- *639 party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entit...

...Under the Workers’ Compensation Law, an employer that maintains workers’ compensation insurance coverage for the benefit of its employees is immune from tort liability for a workplace injury. § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (except as otherwise provided, “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability ....

...A general contractor who has “the liability to secure coverage” for employees of its subcontractor and either secures coverage for the subcontractor’s employees or ensures that the subcontractor secures coverage for its employees enjoys the same immunity. VMS, Inc., 147 So. 3d at 1074-75; § 440.10(1)(e), Fla....

...He was injured on the job and received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. Barker also sued a number of defendants including Latite Roofing, which he claimed had sold East Coast a defective roof deck. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2002), provides that an employer’s liability “prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability to the employee.... ” Section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), sets out the concept of a statutory employer: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of *1066 the employees of such contracto...

...ployed in one and the same business or establishment; and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. “The purpose of section 440.10 is to insure that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor employs an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking.” Roberts v....

...This court affirmed, reasoning that “the subcontractor obtains immunity because it has the commensurate liability to secure compensation to the employees of the sub-subcontractors to whom it has sublet part of its contract work.” Id. at 427 . G & E’s liability to provide benefits under section 440.10(1) therefore entitled it to immunity from Dempsey’s suit....

...Barker argues that Latite Roofing was in breach of its contract with Stiles for failing to comply with a provision that prohibited the use of subcontractors without “written permission” from Stiles. Compliance with that term of the contract has no bearing on whether Latite Roofing was Barker’s statutory employer under section 440.10(l)(b)....

...Relying on Antinarelli v. Ocean Suite Hotel, 642 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the trial court granted summary judgment, finding that Hotelerama qualified as Duran’s statutory employer, thereby rendering the hotel immune from civil liability. We reverse. Section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors enga...

...North of The North Law Firm, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant. Maria Kayanan of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Miami, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Appellees have conceded that the trial court erred in its application of section 440.10, Florida Statutes, to the instant case because the substantive amendments to the workers' compensation statutes had not yet taken effect at the time of the incident which gave rise to the trial court proceedings and the statutes could not be applied retroactively....

...1967, 198 So.2d 25 , extending the immunity of the Workmen’s Compensation law to subcontractors, are erroneous. We disagree. *188 Carter reconsidered the language of the act and the reasoning of the earlier cases dealing with the common employment doctrine embodied in F.S. § 440.10 F.S.A., and found no ground for departure from the prior decisions....

statutory employee of the Orlando Sentinel under section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1993). However, we find

*1272not qualify as a statutory employer under section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes. Even assuming, however

...The trial court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint on the ground that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is a claim for worker’s compensation benefits. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979) provides that an employers’ liability under Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1979) is exclusive....

...440.11 render defendant immune from liability, since that statute provides that the remedy of workmen's compensation is exclusive, plaintiff's employer having secured payment of compensation. F.S. 440.11 provides, so far as here material, that the liability of an employer "prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee". It therefore becomes necessary to apply the provisions of F.S. 440.10 to the facts sub judice....

...be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment." Thus, if McGiffin & Company, Inc., plaintiff's employer, is a "contractor" for *794 purposes of F.S. 440.10(1) and defendant Ploof Transfer, Inc....

...oth statutory employees of Hendry County Rock Company, thus limiting her to Workmen's Compensation benefits, is without merit. Hendry County Rock Company was not a `contractor' and the defendant was not a `subcontractor' as those terms are used in F.S. 440.10(1), F.S.A., so as to confine the plaintiff to Workmen's Compensation benefits as provided in F.S....

...n to perform work by such alleged subcontractors was with the owner or its agent and where the true relationship of contractor and `subs' does not exist; for that is the very predicate for the exclusion expressly set forth in the statutory provision § 440.10(1)." (261 So.2d 166) The court further stated: "It is undisputed * * * that all construction agreements were entered into *795 between Hialeah Hospital * * * and the several contractors on the job....

...r' in the initial cases cited. Under these circumstances there is no `common employer' and the necessary predicate is not present to invoke the workmen's compensation exclusive remedy which the trial court and district court allowed under Fla. Stat. § 440.10(1)....

...There was no relationship of general contractor and subcontractor between McGiffin & Company, Inc. and Ploof Transfer Company, Inc. McGiffin was simply an owner and Ploof an independent contractor who is not, under the holdings of the cases above cited, entitled to assert the imunity afforded by F.S. 440.10(1)....

...Giffin (the plaintiff's employer) and the defendant (the employer of the tow motor operator) was one of employer and independent contractor, and not general contractor and subcontractor as contemplated by the exclusionary language of Florida Statute 440.10(1), and that therefore the defendant below, appellee here, is subject to suit for the alleged negligence of its employee....

...nalty Assessment issued by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the “Department”). Bogdan argues that the Department erred in determining that he was required to obtain workers’ compensation coverage under section 440.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2005)....

Leasing Company. The question is whether Fla.Stat. § 440.-10(1) (1969) 1 F.S.A., makes workmen’s *721compensation

...Section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that "[t]he employer shall pay compensation or furnish benefits ... if the employee suffers an accidental injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment." Section 440.10 sets forth the employer's liability for compensation, and section 440.11(1) provides that this liability is "exclusive and in place of all other liability" as to third-party tortfeasors and employees, save for certain legislatively created exceptions. Section 440.11(1)(b), sets forth the so-called intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer or any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee ......

...yees are “deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment,” and the contractor is liable for the payment of workers’ compensation to the subcontractor’s employees, except to those who have secured compensation. Fla. Stat. § 440.10 (l)(b)....

...ation from Candyworld. We discuss the minor premise first. Under Florida’s workers compensation law, a contractor who subcontracts part of its contractual obligation to another becomes the statutory employer of the subcontractor’s employees. See § 440.10(1), Fla. Stat. (1993); Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Industries Inc., 407 So.2d 910 (Fla.1981); and Lingold v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 416 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). As explained by the court in Motchkavitz : “Section 440.10 establishes the concept of ‘statutory employer’ for contractors who sublet part of their work to others. Section 440.11 provides that the liability established in section 440.10 is ‘exclusive.’ The effect of section 440.10 is that where a subcontractor performing part of the work of a contractor fails to secure payment of compensation, the contractor is liable for same....

...he subcontractor’s injured employee for purposes of an action for statutory benefits or damages at law or in admiralty. * * * “The exclusiveness of liability provided for by section 440.11 extends to an employer’s ‘liability’ as defined in section 440.10....

...Villalta. In *279 the summary judgment the trial court ruled that the appellant’s evidentiary submissions did not meet the requisite standard for gross negligence, to avoid the statutory immunity from suit provided in the Workers’ Compensation Law at section 440.10, Florida Statutes....

...tractor. While working for L & W, Mr. Villalta fell from a scaffold and sustained fatal injuries. The appellant filed a civil suit for damages naming several defendants, including Tropic Aire which then asserted its immunity from suit granted by section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes....

...actor is given immunity from suit by an employee of the other subcontractor, as long as certain circumstances are satisfied including that the first subcontractor’s “own gross negligence was not the major contributing cause of the injury.” See § 440.10(l)(e)2., Fla....

...Because Tropic Aire was not within the vertical chain of a contractor to subcontractor to sub-subcontractor relationship with L & W, as described in Villalta v. Cornn International, Inc., 110 So.3d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), immunity was properly claimed under section 440.10(1), rather than section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....

SHIVERS, Chief Judge. The claimant in this worker’s compensation case appeals an order denying benefits on the basis that he was neither an employee of the appellee nor a “statutory employee” pursuant to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1985)....

...e to be competent substantial evidence in the record to support such a conclusion based on the factors set out in Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d 173 (Fla.1966). We also affirm the JCC’s conclusion that the claimant was not a statutory employee under section 440.10(1)....

...As Orell Bedsole Roofing, the claimant entered into a subcontract with the appellee, a general contractor, to perform a roofing job on a building at Eglin Air Force Base. The claimant did not have worker’s compensation insurance covering himself or his employees. Under section 440.10(1), general contractors are required to provide workers’ compensation coverage to all employees of their subcontractors, where such employees have not been provided coverage by the subcontractor....

...filing notice as provided in section 440.05. Section 440.-02(ll)(c), F.S. (1985). 1 In such a case, a sole proprietor considered to be an employee of his own sole proprietorship could also be a “statutory employee” of a general contractor under section 440.10(1)....

...(1)," Florida Statutes (2010). The Camachos filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of workers' compensation immunity, and in response, Wert and Rubber Applications argued that they were entitled to subcontractor statutory immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), which they also referred to as horizontal immunity....

...er of Rubber Applications, that Mosaic was also the statutory employer of Mid-State, and that Rubber Applications and Mosaic were dependent horizontal subcontractors of Mosaic working on the same project. Wert and Rubber Applications alleged that section 440.10(1)(e) therefore applied....

...question of law, the unrelated works exception did not apply to a claim of immunity between two subcontractors in a horizontal relationship, as opposed to a vertical -3- relationship. Wert and Rubber Applications argued that under section 440.10(1)(e), they were immune from liability because Camacho did not prove that Wert was grossly negligent....

...They further argued that even if the unrelated works exception applied, both Wert's and Camacho's employers were engaged in related works. The Camachos moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the subcontractors are considered statutory coemployees of Mosaic for purposes of workers' compensation immunity under section 440.10(1)(b), but that an exception to the immunity applies under section 440.11 because the subcontractors were engaged in unrelated works....

...This exception is known as the unrelated works exception. -5-  In order to establish that Camacho and Wert were coemployees of the same employer so that the unrelated works exception in section 440.11(1) would apply, Camacho relied on section 440.10(1)(b), which addresses contractors and subcontractors: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of su...

...or, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. Both sides proceed on the premise that Mosaic is a contractor under section 440.10, but they disagree on whether subsection (1)(b) of section 440.10 applies to the relationship between subcontractors Rubber Applications and Mid-State....

...provide cleaning services at airport, and applying unrelated works exception because contractor's employee was coemployee with subcontractor's employee). Wert claims -6- that if the statutory employer concept in section 440.10(1)(b) were to apply to this horizontal relationship between Rubber Applications and Mid-State, it would render meaningless the immunity for horizontal subcontractor relationships provided in section 440.10(1)(e). Section 440.10(1)(e) provides as follows: A subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work is not liable for the payment of compensation to the e...

...sub-subcontractor. Villalta, 110 So. 3d at 953; see also Ramcharitar v. Derosins, 35 So. 3d 94, 96-97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (explaining the statutory history of vertical and horizontal immunity). Vertical relationships as set forth in section 440.10(1)(b) are subject to the liability in section 440.10 and immunity in section 440.11, while horizontal relationships are subject to the liability in section 440.10 and immunity in section 440.10(1)(e). See Villalta, 110 So. 3d at 953; see also Amorin v. Gordon, 996 So. 2d 913, 915-18 (Fla. 4th -7- DCA 2008) (explaining vertical relationships under section 440.10(1)(b) and horizontal relationships under section 440.10(1)(e)).3 Based on the above-cited law, we agree that section 440.10(1)(b) does not apply here to create an employment relationship of any kind between Rubber Applications and Mid-State....

...While Rubber Applications and Mid-State were both subcontractors of Mosaic and thus employees of Mosaic, they were not part of the same "contract work" with Mosaic. No vertical relationship existed between Rubber Applications and Mid-State, and therefore, section 440.10(1)(b) does not "deem[] [them] to be employed in one and the same business or establishment." It then follows that because they are not employees of the same employer, the unrelated works exception in section 440.11 does not apply....

...5th DCA 2003) ("[A] motion for directed verdict should be granted only where no view of the evidence, or inferences made therefrom, could support a verdict for the nonmoving party and the trial court determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for that party.") (citations 3 "Section 440.10(1)(b) [requires contractors] to secure coverage for the employees of subcontractors engaged on sublet contract work." VMS, Inc. v. Alfonso, 147 So. 3d 1071, 1073-74 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). When such coverage has been secured, the contractor is immune from suit. Id. at 1073. And section 440.10 requires subcontractors to secure coverage for their employees....

...But there is no comparable requirement that a subcontractor secure coverage for the employees of a fellow subcontractor. -8- omitted). We reverse and remand for a new trial at which Wert and Rubber Applications may assert horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e)....

...hat the claimant was not an “employee” for purposes of the workers’ compensation act because he was not employed in the construction industry and his employer employed fewer than four people. Because we conclude that this case is controlled by section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), and it is clear that more than four employees were employed by the contractor and various subcontractors, we conclude, further, that the claimant was an “employee” for purposes of the workers’ compensation act....

...he mill. At the beginning of the final hearing, Bush’s attorney conceded that, if the judge of compensation claims concluded the claimant was subject to the workers’ compensation act, Bush would be the claimant’s statutory employer pursuant to section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2002)....

...ployees and, therefore, was not subject to the act’s provisions. Following the hearing, the judge of compensation claims entered an order denying compensability and dismissing the claims and petitions with prejudice. He found that, for purposes of section 440.10(l)(b), Estes was the contractor, Bush was Estes’ subcontractor, Martin was a sub-subcontractor, and the claimant was Martin’s employee....

...However, because Martin had fewer than four employees, the judge concluded that the claimant was not an “employee” for purposes of the workers’ compensation act and that, therefore, he was not entitled to benefits pursuant to the act. This appeal follows. Section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2002), reads: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged...

...reasoned that the claimant did not meet the definition of an “employee” and, therefore, was not entitled to any benefits pursuant to the act. In reaching his decision, however, the judge failed properly to consider the effect of the language of section 440.10(l)(b)....

...It is undisputed that Estes, as the contractor with International Paper, subcontracted a part of the contract work to Bush who, in turn, subcontracted a part of his work to Martin. It is also undisputed that Bush had at least four employees engaged in the contract work. In such a case, section 440.10(l)(b) provides that “all of the employees of [the] contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment .......

...690, 693 (1940), receded from on other grounds in Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So.2d 953 (Fla.1983). Moreover, as we have previously stated in Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc., 538 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 550 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1989), a case factually not unlike this one: The purpose of section 440.10 is to insure [sic] that a particular industry will be financially responsible for injuries to those employees working in it, even though the prime contractor em *1274 ploys an independent contractor to perform part or all of its contractual undertaking. To construe section 440.10 as argued by [appellee] would afford many common carriers a convenient loophole through which to avoid the requirement of workers’ compensation coverage on many drivers delivering loads pursuant to the carrier’s contracts with its customers....

...Bush argues that this case is controlled by our decision in Orlando Sentinel v. Wong-Chow, 652 So.2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). According to Bush, Wong-Chow stands for the proposition that, unless the subcontractor employing the claimant has the requisite number of employees, section 440.10(1)(b) does not apply. We disagree with Bush’s reading of Wong-Chow . In Wong-Chow , we approved the judge’s application of section 440.10(l)(b)....

...So read, it is perfectly consistent with Roberts, and with the result we reach here. Because it is undisputed that Estes, Bush and Martin, together, employed at least four people who were engaged in the contract work, we hold that, pursuant to sections 440.10(1)(b), 440.02(15)(a) and 440.02(17)(b)2, the claimant was an “employee” pursuant to the workers’ compensation act. Bush has correctly conceded that, if the claimant is subject to the workers’ compensation act, Bush is the statutory employer for purposes of section 440.10(1)(b). See Fid. Constr. Co. v. Ar *1275 thur J. Collins & Son, Inc., 130 So.2d 612 (Fla.1961) (holding that, pursuant to section 440.10, when a contractor has subcontracted work to a subcontractor which has workers’ compensation insurance, the subcontractor is liable for work-related injuries sustained by an employee of a sub-subcontractor which did not have workers’ compensation insurance)....

...The summary judgment was entered upon the ground that the facts presented established, without issue, the affirmative defense of these defendants that the plaintiff was barred from recovery because the plaintiff had received workman’s compensation payments, see F.S. § 440.10 and 440.11, F.S.A....

...And, as heretofore noted, if there was no liability as an employer under the Act, there was no immunity from suit as a third-party tort-feasor. Nor can the Corporation be considered a ‘contractor,’ (and thus the ‘statutory’ employer of Burns’ and Grinnell’s employees) within the meaning of Section 440.10 quoted supra, since the clear implication in this part of the Act is that there must be a contractor, a portion of which he sublets to another....

from having a contractual obligation under section 440.10. Woods v. Carpet Restorations, Inc., 611 So

...ctor, to construct the building. Since Independent had the primary contractual obligation with Sears to construct the building, and since it sub-let portions of the work to the other appellees here, Independent was a contractor within the meaning of section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1973), 1 and thus the statutory employer of the employees of its sub-contractors as well as its own....

...same business, and the contractor, Independent, was liable to secure compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a sub-contractor who had secured such payment. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1973), provides that the liability of section 440.10 is the exclusive liability of the employer unless he fails to secure the required compensation, and it clearly appears from the record here that the sub-contractor for whom decedent worked had secured compensation, the benefits of which were being paid to appellant. The judgments appealed from are affirmed. AFFIRMED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., and CLARK, HAROLD R., Associate Judge, concur. . § 440.10(1), Fla.Stat....

...Claimant failed to establish an employer-employee relationship with Appellee Osceola County School Board (OCSB). Because it is not clear to us that the JCC employed the proper legal standards in concluding OCSB was not a statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On August 23, 2011, Claimant was assisting in a veterinary clinic for Pawsitive Action housed at Harmony High School (HHS) in Osceola County when she was bitten by a dog, suffering injuries....

...only issue for determination at the final hearing was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between OCSB and Claimant. Claimant raised several legal theories to establish OCSB as her employer, including that of a statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), which provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontra...

...on to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. The JCC rejected all of Claimant’s theories, finding, in particular, that OCSB was not Claimant’s statutory employer under 440.10(1)(b). Here, the undisputed evidence showed that Pawsitive Action and HHS had a “business partnership” whereby HHS students in the school’s veterinary assisting program were given the opportunity to obtain required clinical hour...

...the direct supervision of licensed veterinarians, vet technicians, vet assistants or program instructors.” 3  In the final order on appeal, the JCC ruled that OCSB was not a statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), based on his determination that there was no evidence of a contractual obligation owed to a third party and then sublet to Pawsitive Action by OCSB. Indeed, there is no formal written contract here—either between OCSB and Pawsitive Action or between OCSB and the county residents. It is well established, however, that to satisfy section 440.10(1)(b), the contractual obligation may be implied, and does not need to be pursuant to an express provision in a written contract....

...between our ruling in Rabon and the unique circumstances here involving public school participation in a “business partnership” for the provision of veterinary services. In Rabon, we held that the definition of “statutory employer” under section 440.10(1)(b) requires a contractual obligation, not an obligation under statutory or common law....

...The educational services otherwise provided by OCSB are thus immaterial to the narrow question of whether OCSB published an advertisement offering veterinary services, to be accepted by members of the public. Accordingly, the JCC’s order finding that OCSB is not Claimant’s statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b) is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MARSTILLER, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR. 6 

...Smith’s statutory employer. Agreeing with this contention, we reverse the order under review and remand for further proceedings. Mr. Smith’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits against Stine as a so-called statutory employer arises under section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engag...

...Smith contends that this was error, but the issue is moot in light of our decision today. Mr. Smith will be entitled on remand to recover taxable costs, including those he was assessed. See Rose Printing Co. v. Wilson, 602 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). . Section 440.10(g), Florida Statutes (1995), may have been the source of the confusion....

...(Emphasis added.) This language might be read to imply that an independent contractor is somehow distinct from a sole proprietor. But a sole proprietorship can be an independent contractor just as a partnership or corporation can be. In any event, the legislature has recently clarified the statutory language. Section 440.10(g) now provides: A sole proprietor, independent — eentraot&fi partner, or officer of a corporation who elects exemption from this chapter by filing a certificate of election under § 440.05 may not recover benefits or compensation under this chapter....

...An independent contractor who provides the general contractor with both an affidavit stating that he or she meets the requirements of § 440.02(14)(d) and a certificate of exemption is not an employee under § 440.02(14)(c) and may not recover benefits under this chapter. Ch. 98-174, § 4, at 1547, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 440.10(g), Fla....

...1, Paragraph 12). 4. Paragraph 36 of the sub-contract calls for Green Mark to provide workers' compensation insurance to its employees. Green Mark failed to provide workers' compensation insurance for Siekman. (Docket No. 1, Paragraph 13). 5. Pursuant to Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1997), Nelson is the statutory employer of Siekman and is immune from any civil liability for the injuries alleged by Siekman except for the payment of workers' compensation benefits....

...This exclusion applies: (1) Whether the insured may be liable as an employer or in any other capacity; and (2) To any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else who must pay damages because of the injury. (Docket No. 1, Paragraph 17). 9. Section 440.10(1) Florida Statutes (1997) states that Siekman is a statutory employee of Nelson....

...Addressing the first issue, this Court finds that the state scheme is neither so complex nor comprehensive as to warrant Burford abstention. The plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment for an interpretation of a statutory employee as described according to the Florida Workers' Compensation Statutes 440.10(1)....

...As such this case sits while a state court case and administrative hearing lie in waiting. On the one hand, the issue central to the administrative hearing and a key for liability in the state and federal cases is the interpretation of the Florida Statutes 440.10(1) "statutory employee"....

claimant was a statutory employee pursuant to section 440.-10(1), F.S. Accordingly, the DC’s order finding

...The court rejects the government’s first argument, but finds that the Feres doctrine bars this FTCA action. *1197 I. Florida’s Worker’s Compensation Statute Does Not Bar Seals’ Claims. Florida requires all qualified employers to provide worker compensation benefits for all their employees. Fla.Stat. Ann. § 440.10 (West 1981)....

...Ordinary employers include the state and its political subdivisions as well as “every person carrying on any employment.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.02(4). Statutory employers are contractors who “sublet any part or parts, of contract work to a subcontractor.” Fla. Stat.Ann. § 440.10(1)....

...The government here acted in a manner consistent with being an “owner” rather than a “contractor.” The mere fact that the government contracted with CFS directly, or had control over the actions of CFS employees, is not relevant. Richardson, 577 F.2d at 135 . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.10 defines a contractor as one who itself has a contractual obligation that it passes on or sublets to the party with whom it contracts....

...In this case, the United States did not sublet a contractual duty. The United States itself was not under a contractual obligation to load and unload military air cargo. The government, therefore, cannot be a “contractor” within the meaning of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.10(1)....

(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability

...6.00 per hour. Carter paid the driver and maintained the truck during the term of the lease. The truckdriver’s duties were limited to hauling rock fill at the direction of the general contractor from a pit several miles away to the jobsite. F.S.A. § 440.10(1) provides that every employee of a contractor or subcontractor coming within the provisions of said chapter shall be covered by workmen’s compensation insurance....

...�[a]ll private employments in which four or more employees are employed by the same employer or, with respect to the construction industry, all private employment in which one or more employees are employed by the same employer.” (Emphasis added). Section 440.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), again holds every employer, contractor, and subcontractor liable for securing compensation for his or her employees. More specifically, section 440.10(1)(b) states: (b) In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract wor...

...shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. The trial court determined that the stipulated facts brought this case within the terms of section 440.10(1)(b), meaning it involved a contractor — Arbor Pro — subletting a part of its work to a subcontractor— Southern Crane — such that, under the provisions of section 440.10(1)(b), Arbor Pro was required to secure payment of compensation for all the employees on the project, except for Southern Crane’s employee, for whom Southern Crane had already secured compensation....

...contractor working or performing services in the construction industry.” § 440.02(15)(c)3., Fla. Stat. (2007). Consequently, as the argument was presented to the trial court, Southern Crane would then be entitled to “immunity” from suit under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), which provides in pertinent part as follows: A subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work ......

...o Arbor Pro’s tree pruning and removal operations, while construction code 9534 would be assigned solely to Southern Crane’s crane operations. As such, Arbor Pro was not acting as a construction contractor and, therefore, had no obligation under section 440.10 to secure workers’ compensation for Wood, who could not be considered as a statutory employee under section 440.02(15)(c)3. Consequently, Southern Crane, as the subcontractor, could not claim the “exclusiveness-of-liability” benefit conferred by section 440.10(1)(e), which, by its plain language, requires there to be injury to an “employee ......

...Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellee. EISNAUGLE, J. Electric Boat Corporation appeals an order granting Sylvia Fallen’s motion for summary judgment, and denying Electric Boat’s dueling motion, on Electric Boat’s affirmative defense of horizontal workers’ compensation immunity pursuant to section 440.10, Florida Statutes (2014)....

...We have jurisdiction1 and reverse because the undisputed facts at summary judgment establish that Electric Boat was not grossly negligent as a matter of law and is therefore immune from liability under the exclusive remedy provision of Florida’s workers’ compensation statute. 2 See § 440.10(1)(e)(2), Fla....

...act and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a). 4  In this case, the parties agree that Electric Boat is immune from liability for simple negligence. See §§ 440.10–.11, Fla. Stat. (2014). Nevertheless, a subcontractor is not immune from liability where the “major contributing cause” of the accident was the subcontractor’s own gross negligence. See § 440.10(1)(e)(2), Fla....

...rocker Center during the years 1984, 1985, and 1986. The issue of ownership is relevant to respondents’ position that, while a general contractor may be immune from tort liability under the exclusivity provision of the workers’ compensation law, section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1985), an owner-builder may not be so immune....

...The injured employee has an exclusive remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt, Fla. 1950, 48 So.2d 840 . The predicate for the statutory immunity under Fla.Stat. § 440.11 (1973) is the obligation of contractors and subcontractors under Fla.Stat. § 440.10 (1973) to secure the payment of workmen’s compensation to all employees injured on the job....

...ovide his truct and a driver to Imler. One of the general contractor’s employees was injured by a rock which fell from Asbell’s truck at a time when Asbell himself was the driver. The court held that Asbell was immune from suit under Fla.Stat. §§ 440.10 and 440.11....

...QGS, so that JBA and Mr. Gross were immune from civil liability for QGS' employee's injuries. Mr. Heredia's motion for summary judgment argued otherwise. He pointed out that the applicable subsection of the Workers Compensation Law, section 440.10(b), only creates horizontal privity when "a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors." Because Lennar was developing the Oaks at Shady Creek project for itself as the owne...

...4th DCA 2015): "Workers' compensation immunity has been broadly expanded by the legislature to include subcontractors and sub-subcontractors 2Subject to limited exceptions, section 440.11(1) provides that [t]he liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or...

.... -4- working at a construction site, precluding an employee of one contracting entity injured on the job from suing another contracting entity working at the same construction site in tort." Section 440.10(1)(b) provides the contours of horizontal immunity: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees...

...employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. The issue here is whether Lennar was a "contractor" that "sublet part or parts" of its "contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors" for purposes of section 440.10(1)(b)....

...horizontal immunity. As it happens, we have delved into this definitional issue before. In Derogatis v. Fawcett Memorial Hospital, 892 So. 2d 1079, 1083-84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), we explained that for a party to be considered a "contractor" pursuant to section 440.10(1)(b), its " 'primary obligation in performing a job or providing a service must arise out of a contract.' " Sotomayor v. Huntington Broward Assocs....

...To the contrary, the evidence thus far tends to show that Lennar was acting on its own behalf as the owner of its own property.3 See Cuero v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 849 So. 2d 326, 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing summary judgment that deemed Ryland a "statutory employer" under section 440.10(1)(b) where "Ryland was the fee owner of the property upon which it was developing the Bayshore Townhomes to sell for profit" and "Ryland undertook to develop its own property acting as its own general contractor")....

...ers' compensation benefits. Further, the JCC found that claimant was an uninsured subcontractor working for Blue Stone, a general contractor, on the date of his accident. As such, the JCC ruled claimant was an employee of Blue Stone, by operation of section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), and entitled to look to Blue Stone for workers' compensation benefits....

...However, in the case sub judi-ce, RT was not a contractor who subcontracted a part of its contract to D & K, and therefore is not immune from suit. RT cannot be considered a contractor and thus a statutory employer of Mr. Bryant, within the meaning of section 440.10, since the clear implication of that section is that there must be a contractual obligation on the part of the contractor, a portion of which he sublets to another....

...The trial judge held that the appellee was immune from suit and entered summary judgment, for the appellee. We affirm. There is no genuine issue of material fact, and the point presented is whether appellee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. We think that the construction of § 440.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...Appellant presents a second point directed to the existence of contributory negligence as a matter of law. It does not present error. See Deane v. Johnston, Fla. 1958, 104 So.2d 3 , 65 A.L.R.2d 957 and cases cited therein. Affirmed. . See Fla.Stat. 440.10, 440.11, 440.39, F.S.A.; Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co....

compensation benefits to its employees is found in section 440.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), which provides

...We conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the decedent was an employee of appellee at the time of his death. Accordingly, we reverse. Appellee argues that the trial court’s decision was correct either because it was a “statutory employer,” as that term is defined in section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1994); or because it was a “special employer” of the decedent....

apply rule since "the 2003 revision to section 440.10 occurred twenty years after the Court decided

...“It is the obligation to secure workers’ com *1183 pensation that gives the employer immunity from suit as a third-party tortfeasor.” Cuero v. Ryland, Grp. Inc., 849 So.2d 326, 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285, 287 (Fla.1954)). Section 440.10(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2008) provides: Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment to his or her employees ......

...of the compensation payable under ss. 440.13, 440.15, and 440.16. Any contractor or subcontractor who engages in any public or private construction in the state shall secure and maintain compensation for his or her employees under this chapter as provided in s. 440.38. Section 440.10(l)(b) provides further: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engage on such contrac...

...ing (rather than One Stop Plumbing), DBI would be considered Zambrana’s statutory employer and would also be entitled to worker’s compensation immunity. Under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2008): The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin,...

...of workmen’s compensation benefits to an employee of an uninsured sub-subcontractor devolves entirely upon the general contractor at the top of the contractual pyramid or whether it devolves entirely upon the insured intervening subcontractor.” Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, 1957, F.S.A., provides: “Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for and shall secure the pay...

...Willis, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 422, 427 , in a case in which it held that Lindsey was the claimant’s employer and liable for his injuries, said: “Having so held, it becomes unnecessary to discuss petitioner’s contentions concerning the constitutionality of F. S. Sec. 440.10(1), F.S.A., as applied by the Full Commission....

...employer. This is so far the reason that Lindsey would then be the prime contractor or common employer with the primary obligation to Buckeye; and employees of those to whom Lindsey ‘sublet’ should fall within the class contemplated by F.S. Sec. 440.10(1), F.S. A.” It is manifest that the purpose of Section 440.10(1) is to protect employees of irresponsible and uninsured subcontractors by imposing ultimate liability on the general contractor who has it within his power to insist upon adequate compensation protection for employees of his subcontractors. The Supreme Court of Florida in Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 143 Fla. 335 , 196 So. 690 , held that Florida Statutes, Section 440.10(1), F.S.A., imposes a statutory liability on the general contractor where the subcontractor has failed to secure adequate compensation coverage and that the general contractor is the statutory employer of all employees engaged....

...It is the unassailable rule that if appellant falls within the purview of the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act, his remedies for the injuries suffered are exclusively as provided therein. § 440.11, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., reads: “440.11 Exclusiveness of Liability. “The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law...

...ent contractor, rather than that of employee, in regard to his relationship to International Builders. The only alternative way in which Stevens might be considered to be an employee is if he were to be the employee of a subcontractor. In that case, § 440.10(1),....

...test—the services performed for each employer are largely unrelated—simply is not satisfied by the evidence, for at the time of his workplace injury, Claimant was performing the same (indivisible) services for both Hartzell and Colors. Section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that “[i]n case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or 3 subcontractors, all the employees of suc...

...Hearing Order2 finding dual employment and splitting liability for workers’ compensation benefits between Hartzell and Colors through their respective carriers, and remand for further proceedings to include consideration of the applicability of section 440.10(1)(b)....

...That ruling was based on the trial judge’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue regarding the appellee’s status as general contractor for the construction project and that the appellee had subcontracted plumbing work at the site to the decedent’s employer. Since, under section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1985), a general contractor in that posture is required to secure the payment of compensation to all employees of the subcontractor, the liability to secure compensation is exclusive under section 440.11(1) and th...

...The deputy found that claimant was an employee of Harley, but not of Ploof. In making this decision the deputy relied on A Nu Transfer Inc. v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 427 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). However, the record does not indicate any consideration by the deputy as to the applicability of § 440.10, Florida Statutes (1980). In Barrow v. Shell Products, Inc., 466 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), a decision rendered subsequent to the deputy’s order in the present case, this court established that pursuant to § 440.10 a trucking company may be the statutory employer of a driver of a leased truck....

...The claimant in Barrow was held to be the trucking company’s statutory employee even though no actual employment relation was found to exist. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the deputy commissioner for consideration as to the applicability of § 440.10, Florida Statutes (1980), in light of our decision in Barrow ....

...The appellee, Juan Duran, plaintiff below, filed this personal injury complaint against Mira Group, Inc. (“Mira Group”). Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on Mira Group’s affirmative defense that it was Duran’s “statutory employer”-pursuant to section 440.10(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1995) and therefore enjoyed workers’ compensation immunity from this lawsuit pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...he garage area, negligence in directing, instructing and ordering the installation of the garage door in a dangerous manner; and for its failure to warn. As an affirmative defense, Mira Group claimed to be the statutory employer of Duran pursuant to section 440.10 1 and therefore immune from suit pursuant to section 440.11 2 ....

...4th DCA 1971), we conclude that neither of the parties were entitled to a summary judgment on the affirmative defense of workers’ compensation immunity in this case. We therefore reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of Duran and remand for further proceedings. Reversed. . Section 440.10, Florida Statutes provides, in relevant part, that: (l)(b) In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or su...

...all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 410.10(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). . Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes provides, in pertinent part, that: *341 (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to...

...The limerock was purchased by Ewell Engineering and delivered to a railroad siding. Defendant company then *509 transported the limerock in its own trucks to the job site. Plaintiff contends that defendant company was not a sub-contractor as contemplated by §§ 440.10 and 440.11, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., but a third party tort-feasor under the provisions of § 440.39, Fla.Stats., F.S.A....

...ay accept compensation benefits and still pursue his remedy by action at law against the third party. We do not agree that defendant company was a third party tort-feasor such as contemplated under § 440.39, but rather came within the provisions of § 440.10(1), Fla....

to Claimant, their statutory employee. See section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1987); Atlantic Masonry

* ‘The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability

...The policy also contains the following relevant definition: “Employee” includes a “leased worker.” “Employee” does not include a “temporary worker.” [DE 42-1,19, ¶ 5]. Amerisure contends that the undisputed facts demonstrate that, pursuant to Section 440.10(l)(b) of the Florida Worker’s Compensation Act, Epoch was the “statutory employer” of the Plaintiff in the underlying action and, therefore, both Exclusions 2.d. and 2.e apply. Section 440.10(l)(b) provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work...

...entered into a further subcontract with Sandi, and Plaintiff in the underlying case was injured while performing this subcontracted work for Sandi [DE 42, 3, ¶ 16, DE 49, 2-4, ¶¶ 1, 7, 8]. Based upon these undisputed facts, and the application of Section 440.10(l)(b) to these facts, the Court concludes that Plaintiff in the underlying case was a statutory employee of Epoch....

liability — The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability

...lark [“Clark”], appeals a summary final judgment entered in favor of Rayford Lee Waldron [“Waldron”], the defendant below, on the basis that he was immune from suit by virtue of having secured workers’ compensation insurance for Clark. See § 440.10(l)(a), Fla....

...steel structural work. Appellant was injured in the course of doing this work due to the alleged negligence of G & E. Appellant received worker’s compensation benefits from Dixie Steel and then filed suit against G & E for its negligence. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on suc...

...Abernathy, 442 So.2d 953 (Fla.1983) supports this position. However, Abernathy addressed a different employment relationship. In Abernathy the employee of a general contractor attempted *427 to sue the subcontractor for negligence. The supreme court held that such a suit was allowed under section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1983), as amended because the subcontractor had no duty to provide worker’s compensation benefits to the employee of the general contractor....

...pro quo to supplant tort liability. In the instant case the subcontractor is obligated to provide worker’s compensation benefits to the employees of its sub-subcontractor as a “contractor [who] sublets any part or parts of his contract work.” § 440.10(1), Fla.Stat....

...We therefore hold that section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987), entitles a subcontractor to immunity from actions at law for negligence brought by employees of sub-subcontractors because of the liability of the subcontractor to provide worker’s compensation benefits under section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1987), to the employees of its sub-subcontractor....

. ‘The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability

of Florida) which added the last sentence to section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, as follows: A subcontractor

...from liability for the negligent acts of an employee which resulted in injury to an employee of another subcontractor. Is the subcontractor who employed the individual who injured the employee of another subcontractor immune from suit under sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1977) when both subcontractors are subsidiaries of the same general contractor? We hold that under these circumstances section 440.10(1) provides no immunity for the subcontractor....

...to immunity from suit under the workmen’s compensation laws. The court was also persuaded by the fact that Pan American and both subcontractors appeared as named insureds under the workmen’s compensation policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of P.J. This appeal ensued. Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1977) provides: In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors ....

...440.11 from action of law ... on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor. (Emphasis supplied). The plain language of the statute contains no extension of the general contractor’s immunity to a corporation it owns in whole or in part. When section 440.10(1) was amended in 1974 to include a right of action against a subcontractor, 1 it established for the first time that subcontractors no longer enjoyed immunity for injuries inflicted by employees on employees of other subcontractors. Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So.2d 239 (Fla.1977); Martel v. Gibeaut, Inc., 330 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Although De Armas could not sue his employer, Southwest, or Pan American, he has, under section 440.10, a right to bring an action against a subcontractor standing in a horizontal relationship to his employer....

HURLEY, Judge. This appeal is taken from a summary final judgment which found that the defendant/appellee, General Builders Corporation of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. (General Builders), is immune from suit by virtue of sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...subsidiaries were so totally dominated that they were not entitled to be viewed as separate entities. He claimed that if this were established at trial, General Builders would not be entitled to the tort immunity conferred on contractors by sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...The record in the case at bar discloses that the plaintiff submitted documents and depositions to support his contention of total domination. By so doing, the plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning the corporate status of the defendant/subsidiary and the availability of immunity under sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....

...� compensation benefits are immune from tort suits by employees injured in the course of their employment. § 440.11, Fla.Stat. (1981). Under the law, “contractors” who sublet work become statutory employers of their subcontractor’s employees. § 440.10, Fla.Stat....

...Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and LOBREE, JJ.  LOBREE, J. Fernando Galue appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of Clopay Corporation (“Clopay”) and Anthony Julian on each’s affirmative defense that Clopay was Galue’s statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2022), and therefore entitled to statutory employer immunity from Galue’s personal injury claim....

...Therefore, we conclude that when Clopay hired Galue’s employer to conduct a fire inspection of its premises it did not sublet “part or parts” of its “contract work to a subcontractor,” such that Clopay obtained statutory employer status under section 440.10(1)(b)....

...Clopay asserted that it then delegated its contractual obligation to KTR SF II to Galue’s employer, FFS. As a result, Clopay was a “statutory employer” of a subcontractor, FFS, and was therefore immune from liability via the “vertical immunity” set forth in section 440.10(1)(b)....

...Galue opposed Clopay’s summary judgment motion, arguing in part that the lease’s requirement that Clopay use the premises in compliance with the law was not a service it performed for KTR SF II. Therefore, Clopay was not a “contractor” who sublet “contract work” under section 440.10(1)(b). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Clopay....

...FFS. Galue, in turn, was injured “while performing these fire safety services” as an employee of FFS. Thus, the trial court concluded that Clopay was entitled to worker’s compensation immunity as Galue’s statutory employer under sections 440.10(1)(b) and 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....

...worker’s compensation immunity is reviewed de novo. See Heredia v. John Beach & Assocs., Inc., 278 So. 3d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Slora v. Sun ‘n Fun Fly-In, Inc., 173 So. 3d 1099, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). ANALYSIS Under section 440.10(1)(b), a defendant is entitled to worker’s compensation immunity as an injured worker’s “statutory employer if it is considered a ‘contractor’ that ‘sublet[] any part’ of its ‘contract work’” to the injured worker’s employer. Tampa Elec. Co. v. Gansner, 327 So. 3d 1281, 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (quoting § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...ness or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b). “[T]he purpose of section 440.10 ....

...Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts, 550 So. 2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 1989) (quoting Roberts v. Gator Freightways, Inc., 538 So. 2d 55, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)); see also Crum Servs. v. Lopez, 975 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining that section 440.10(1)(b) “is designed to ensure that employees engaged in the same contract work are covered by workers’ compensation, regardless of whether they are employees of the general contractor or its subcontractor”). To be considered a “contractor” under section 440.10(1)(b), an entity must “show that it ‘incurred a contractual obligation to a third party.’”1 Slora, 173 So. 3d at 1101; see also Rabon v. Inn of Lake City, Inc., 693 So. 2d 1126, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“[W]e read the language of section 440.10(1)(b) as an expression of legislative intent that the sublet work must be an obligation included within a promissory agreement between the 1 Galue does not dispute that a commercial lease is a contract to which section 440.10(1)(b) may apply. See, e.g., Gator Freightways, Inc., 550 So. 2d at 1119 (stating that section 440.10 is not limited to construction contracts); Miami-Dade Cnty. v Acosta, 757 So. 2d 539, 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (finding that Miami-Dade County had “contractual obligation” for section 440.10 purposes under commercial lease). 6 contractor and a third party.”); Bal Harbour Tower Condo. Ass’n, v. Bellorin, 351 So. 3d 96, 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). That contractual obligation to a third party must in turn be sublet to a subcontractor. See Rabon, 693 So. 2d at 1131 (stating that section 440.10(1)(b) “is expressly limited to circumstances in which a contractor sublets performance of a contractual obligation that it owes to a third party”); Woods v....

...nt. We find that Galue’s argument has merit. 7  The fact that a defendant has a contractual obligation to a third party alone does not give that defendant tort immunity as a “contractor” under section 440.10(1)(b). Instead, Florida courts have consistently characterized the contractual obligation, or “contract work,” to which section 440.10(1)(b) refers as an obligation on the part of the defendant to perform a job or provide a service....

...2d at 1119 (“Roberts recognized that, for a company to be a contractor under this section, its primary obligation in performing a job or providing a service must arise out of a contract.”); Tampa Elec. Co., 327 So. 3d at 1284 (“To be considered a contractor under section 440.10, Tampa Electric’s ‘primary obligation in performing a job or providing a service must arise out of a contract.’” (quoting Sotomayor v....

...job or providing a service must arise out of a contract.” (quoting Derogatis v. Fawcett Mem’l Hosp., 892 So. 2d 1079, 1083–84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); Acme Oil v. Vasatka, 465 So. 2d 1314, 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“To be a contractor under [section 440.10], one must have a contractual obligation to perform some work for another.”); see also Bal Harbour Tower Condo. Ass’n., 351 So....

...clause required nothing more than that it restrict its use of the premises in accordance with the general law. Clopay was not obligated to perform a job or service. Thus, Clopay was not a “contractor” that sublet its “contract work” within the meaning of section 440.10(1)(b) when it hired FFS....

...Therefore this court cannot affirm the summary judgment order based on this argument. Sousa v. Zuni Transp., Inc., 286 So. 3d 820, 823–24 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (declining to affirm summary judgment on grounds not raised in summary judgment under section 440.10 merely because the performance of that obligation is regulated by statute”). 10 motion; “[I]t is well-settled that ‘[t]he [t]ipsy [c]oachman doctrine does not apply to grounds not raised in a motion for summary judgment.’” (quoting Mitchell v....

...The injured worker sued the County, and the trial court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment based on worker’s compensation immunity. This court reversed, holding that the County was the injured worker’s statutory employer under section 440.10(1)(b)....

...We reasoned that because the County had a “contractual obligation to American Airlines to remediate the excavations,” which obligation it then sublet, and the injury occurred while performing remediation efforts, the County was a “contractor” within the meaning of section 440.10(1)(b)....

...to perform some work (e.g., inspect, assess, or repair fire safety equipment) for KTR SF II. Thus, Clopay’s assertion that Acosta is “factually indistinguishable” from the case at hand and compels a finding that it is a “contractor” under section 440.10(1)(b) lacks merit....

...3d DCA 2022) (quoting Dep’t of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So. 2d 310, 312 (Fla. 1983) (stating that per curiam decision should not be relied on for anything other than res judicata)). 12 section 440.10(1)(b) when Galue was injured while conducting a fire safety inspection of Clopay’s premises as an employee of FFS....

...y action against an employer was barred by the provisions of the Florida Workmen’s Compensation Act, specifically Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which states: “Exclusiveness of liability. — The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law...

...40.02(15)(c)(l) through (4), that the Legislature has intended to include all persons working or performing services on a construction site within the definition of an ‘employee’ ”. This appeal timely followed. Combined application of sections 440.10 and 440.11 of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act operates to provide contractors with immunity from liability in negligence lawsuits filed by injured employees under certain circumstances. As relevant to the instant appeal, section 440.10 of the Florida Statutes requires a contractor to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for all of the employees working on the construction site. See § 440.10(l)(b), Fla....

...’ compensation coverage for the employees on the construction site, the contractor receives immunity from negligence liability for injuries suffered by any employee: 440.11. Exclusiveness of liability (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive *782 and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of...

...All persons who are being paid by a construction contractor as a subcontractor, unless the subcontractor has validly elected an exemption as permitted by this chapter, or has otherwise secured the payment of compensation coverage as a subcontractor, consistent with s. 440.10, for work performed by or as a subcontractor....

...to secure employee of subcontractor’s subcontractor by workmen’s compensation insurance or be primarily liable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for compensation claim of employee of subcontractor’s subcontractor. In this case we said: “Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, 1957, F.S.A., provides: “ ‘Every employer coming within the provisions of this chapter, including any brought within the chapter by waiver of exclusion or of exemption, shall be liable for and shall secure the...

...usiness or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment.’ ****** “It is manifest that the purpose of Section 440.10(1) is to protect employees of irresponsible and uninsured subcontractors by imposing ultimate liability on the general contractor who has it within his power to insist upon adequate compensation protection for employees of his subcontractors. The Supreme Court of Florida in Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 143 Fla. 335 , 196 So. 690 , held that Florida Statutes, *576 Section 440.10(1) F.S.A., imposes a statutory liability on the general contractor where the subcontractor has failed to secure adequate compensation coverage and that the general contractor is the statutory employer of all employees engaged....

— The liability of an employer prescribed in § 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability

...The claimant is not entitled to recover workers’ compensation benefits from the employer/carrier because the claimant filed a valid notice of election to be exempt from the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See Battle v. Gentry, 898 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); § 440.10(1), Fla....

...mission rule 9, referred to in Brown, 305 So.2d at 193 . See also, Dept. of Highway Safety, etc. v. McBride, 420 So.2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), "[t]he rulings in Hoagey [Jewel Tea] and Brown effectively synthesize the interplay between § 440.21 and § 440.10(15) [F.S.]...." Section 440.20(15), which incorporates former rule 9 mentioned in Brown , was enacted into law in 1977 as section 440.20(13), later renumbered to § 440.20(15), and by amendment in 1994, Chapter 93-415, Section 26, Laws of Florida, was again renumbered as section 440.20(14)....

is empowered to make an independent claim by section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes. See Rubich v. Burdines

...Because there is an issue of fact as to the relationship between A-l and Cedarwood, the summary judgment was improvidently entered. The judgment is reversed *350 and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. REVERSED and REMANDED. COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . Section 440.10, Fla.Stat....

affords no immunity. The immunity afforded under Section 440.10 arises from the liability of an employer to

...Claimant could not establish an increased risk of harm associated with her employment . . . Claimant could not establish that the injury arose out of employment because the accident could have happened elsewhere.” 100 So. 3d at 782. We held that such a conclusion would implicate section 440.10(2), Florida Statutes, which provides that, absent narrow exceptions, “[c]ompensation shall be payable irrespective of fault as a cause for the injury.” Again citing Walker, we stated, “Thus, in the absence of any medical evidence...

...required the denial of “claims that were ‘previously determined on the merits upon an appeal from the judgment’ of conviction or that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not[.]” 121 S. Ct. at 365 (quoting N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10(2)(a) (McKinney 1994))....

...ral rules required the denial of "claims that were 'previously determined on the merits upon an appeal from the judgment' of conviction or that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not[.]" 121 S.Ct. at 365 (quoting N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10(2)(a) (McKinney 1994))....

...ded herein. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.09 (West 1981). Florida workmen’s compensation law provides that liability of the employer shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee. See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.10-11 (West 1981); Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co....

produce a copy *437of Dixon’s exemption under section 440.10(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997).1 This appeal

the payments of the compensation provided in Section 440.10 Every employer is required to secure the payment

...Dickson, Pennington Moore Wilkinson Bell & Dunbar, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. David B. Pleat and Amy A. Perry, Pleat & Perry, P.A., Destin, for Appellee. BARFIELD, J. The defendant in a wrongful death suit appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment which was based on a claim of immunity under section 440.10, Florida Statutes....

...llant was the statutory employer of the plaintiff's decedent and was therefore entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on both counts of the complaint. We reject appellee's arguments on appeal, finding each of them to be without merit. Under section 440.10(1)(a), any contractor or subcontractor who engages in any construction in the state is required to secure and maintain workers' compensation coverage for his or her employees. Under section 440.10(1)(b), when a contractor "sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor," the contractor is liable for the payment of compensation to all employees of the subcontractor who are "engaged on such contract work" unless the subcontractor has secured workers' compensation coverage....

...The deputy commissioner’s order found claimant’s injury com-pensable on two grounds: (1) the claimant was at the time of his injury a subcontractor without workers’ compensation insurance, thus making the employer a statutory employer within the meaning of Section 440.10, Florida Statutes, and (2) the claimant’s business relationship with the employer, absent any consideration of a subcon-, tractor relationship, leads to the finding that there was sufficient supervision, control and sharing of respon...

...See Brewer v. Cueto, 379 So.2d 1322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Alternatively, the deputy commissioner found the claimant to be a subcontractor without workers’ compensation insurance, thus making Natural Landscaping a statutory employer within the meaning of Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, providing in pertinent part that when a contractor sublets any part or parts of his work to a subcontractor, all of the subcontractor’s employees shall be considered employees of the contractor, who is in turn deemed to be a “statutory employer”. Claimant, a sole proprietor, was found by the deputy to be a “statutory employee” under section 440.10(1), and therefore covered under the workers’ compensation policy of the contractor, Natural Landscaping, the “statutory employer”....

...ractor, and not to a single employee. See generally Boyd-Scarp Enterprises, Inc. v. Saunders, 453 So.2d 161, 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Consequently, even if claimant could be considered a subcontractor, he is his own employee and is not covered under Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes. Stevens v. International Builders of Florida, Inc., 207 So.2d 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Accordingly, that portion of the deputy's order finding claimant to be a subcontractor under Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, was in error, but because there was competent, substantial evidence supporting the finding that an employment relationship existed between claimant and the employer/carrier, the erroneous portion of the order has no effect on the compensability award entered....

...The deputy commissioner found claimant to be, absent any consideration of a "subcontractor relationship”, an employee under section 440.02. In doing so, the deputy commissioner implicitly found that claimant was not an independent contractor. However, the deputy commissioner also found claimant to be a subcontractor under Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes....

...ly against the employer for payment of the claim in the event of the insolvency of the insurer. Despite the purchase of workers' compensation insurance, employers remained statutorily liable for the payment of the benefits due under chapter 440. See § 440.10(1)(a), Fla.Stat....

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a final summary judgment for the defendant Renan E. Delgado in a wrongful death action by an employee of Machine Construction Company. The summary judgment was apparently entered under the provisions of Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1975), although the defense was not pleaded nor does the judgment so specify....

...The injury was allegedly caused by the negligence of another defendant, Leroy’s Crane Service. The evidence is conflicting on the contractual relationship of the crane service to Delgado or Machín. We hold that summary final judgment was improperly entered on this record. The applicability of the exclusion in Section 440.10, Florida Statutes (1975), can be determined only when the status of the defendant Delgado is fully established on the record....

...(“Sunbelt”) in this negligence action against Sunbelt after Wilson Ciceron (“Ciceron”) suffered an injury while working on a construction site. Ciceron argues that the trial court erred in determining that Sunbelt was a subcontractor on the project entitled to horizontal immunity pursuant to section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2010)....

...Workers’ compensation immunity has been broadly expanded by the legislature to include subcontractors and sub-subcontractors working at a construction site, precluding an employee of one contracting entity injured on the job from suing another contracting entity working at the same construction site in tort.3 See § 440.10, Fla. Stat. (2004). The doctrine of horizontal immunity, re-enacted in 2004, under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004) provides: 3Ramcharitar v....

...ctor has secured such insurance on behalf of the subcontractor and its employees in accordance with paragraph (b); and 2. The subcontractor’s own gross negligence was not the major contributing cause of the injury.[4] § 440.10(1)(e), Fla....

...language to be more instructive. The core concept for extending workers’ compensation immunity from tort liability to subcontractors revolves around the notion of a contractor “subletting” part of its contractual obligation to work to a subcontractor. Section 440.10(1)(b), provides: (b) In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors...

...For that reason, the protection afforded to a “subcontractor” under the one law may not be the same under the other law. 5  except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. § 440.10(1)(b), Fla....

...Cranfil, 7 So. 3d 611, 613 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), the effect of a contractor subletting part of the work is “to pass on to another an obligation under a contract for which the person so ‘subletting’ is primarily obligated.” Thus, the intent of section 440.10 is “to ensure that employees engaged in the same contract work are covered under worker’s compensation, regardless of whether they are employees of the general contractor or any of its subcontractors.” Id. (citations omitted). Stated another way, “[t]he rationale of [section 440.10] is to equate the situation of work[ers] at a job in which various subcontractors are functioning under a general contractor with that which would obtain if the general contractor itself were employing the work[ers] directly.” Gulf Am....

...purposes, is that a contractor who sublets all or any part of its contract work is the employer not only of its own employees but also of the employees of any subcontractor to whom all or any part of the principal contract has been sublet. § 440.10(1), Fla.Stat....

...Thus, the facts of this case do not show that either Associated Industries or D&D Welding sublet to Sunbelt any of the work it had contracted with Butters to perform. We therefore hold that under the facts of this case, Sunbelt was not a subcontractor protected under section 440.10 (1)(e), and as such, was not entitled to horizontal immunity....

...District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. April 15, 1976. Mark S. Roth, Miami Beach, for appellant. Frank E. Maloney Jr., of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. DOWNEY, Judge. This appeal involves the propriety of a retrospective application of § 440.10(1) F.S....

...1974, in a suit commenced October 2, *494 1974, arising out of an accident which occurred October 26, 1972. Appellant, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured on October 26, 1972, by an employee of another subcontractor on the same construction jobsite. At the time of the accident § 440.10(1) F.S. 1971 precluded an employee of one subcontractor from suing another subcontractor on the same jobsite for injuries resulting from negligence. However, § 440.10(1) F.S....

...Roman, Fla.App. 1961, 3 DCA, 174 So.2d 443, neither of which is apposite to this case. To allow appellant to sue appellee for an accident arising out of employment on a jobsite in 1972 would require a retrospective application of the 1974 amendment to § 440.10(1) F.S....