CopyCited 223 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 784, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 2275, 2001 WL 1472591
...d-party tort action for personal injuries against DOT for negligence in maintaining the weigh station. DOT moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity because the "unrelated works" exception under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997), [1] did not apply....
...In this case, the scope of the issues in the first motion for summary judgment and the non-final appeal of the denial of that motion were limited to whether Juliano was required to specifically identify the names of the negligent employees in order to be entitled to invoke the "unrelated works" exception to section 440.11(1)....
...In addition, "[t]here is no prohibition on the presentation of successive motions for summary judgment." Bakker,
575 So.2d at 224. For all these reasons, on remand from the non-final appeal affirming the denial of the motion for summary judgment on the ground that Juliano failed to name specific employees under section
440.11(1), the law of the case doctrine did not preclude either the trial court or the Third District from considering whether section
440.11(1) requires that an employee demonstrate that his or her supervisor was culpably negligent in order to be entitled to relief pursuant to that section....
...Accordingly, we quash the decision of the Third District and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. [7] It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The "unrelated works" exception under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides that workers' compensation immunity is not "applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unre...
...dispute had it done so after 1996. [3] In Holmes, this Court considered the interrelationship of the sovereign immunity statute, section
768.28(9), Florida Statutes (1991), and the "unrelated works" exception to workers' compensation immunity under section
440.11(1) as applied to a public employer....
...standard of negligence under the unrelated works doctrine was not the subject of the initial motion for summary judgment. [7] Although both DOT and Juliano raise as an issue before this Court whether culpable negligence is the proper standard under section 440.11(1), because the Third District erroneously concluded that it was precluded from addressing this issue based upon the doctrine of res judicata, the better approach is for the Third District to consider this issue on remand.
CopyCited 126 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 549, 7 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1782, 1989 Fla. LEXIS 1057, 51 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39, 446, 58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1606, 1989 WL 128596
...medy available to a worker injured in a manner that falls within the broad scope and policies of the workers' compensation statute. American Freight System, Inc. v. Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.,
453 So.2d 468, 470 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). Indeed, section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy and is "in place of all other liability of such employer ......
...The specific acts complained of do not result in an injury "by accident arising out of and in the course of employment," section
440.02(14), Florida Statutes, for which compensation benefits would be payable. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the section
440.11 exclusiveness of liability is inapplicable, and that the employees may seek to impose liability upon the employers under the law applicable to tort cases....
CopyCited 112 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4730
...1970). These decisions, however, do not derogate from the traditional concepts of indemnity. In Sunspan, we expressly stated that our opinion is limited to the holding that the alleged liability of the employer to the manufacturer is not barred by section 440.11(1) because that statute is unconstitutional as applied....
CopyCited 106 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 783, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 2254, 2004 WL 2922141
...After the action had been pending for a number of years and the parties had engaged in extensive discovery, Fleetwood and its employees requested the entry of a summary final judgment. See id. The respondents argued that they were entitled to immunity pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes (Supp.1990)....
...The district court explained that an employee may sue an employer for an intentional tort, may sue a supervisor whose conduct rises to the level of culpable negligence, or sue a coemployee whose conduct rises to the level of gross negligence or willful and wanton conduct. See id. at 864 (citing § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 75 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 445, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1242, 1992 WL 158194
...It is undisputed that Mandico applied for and received benefits under the worker's compensation policy procured on his behalf by Taos. However, Mandico, later filed a negligence action against Taos and Philmore. Mandico alleged that Taos and its employee had no immunity under section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), [1] because he was an independent contractor from whose wages Taos had "unilaterally extracted" the cost of the premium for worker's compensation insurance in violation of section
440.21, Florida Statutes (1983). In their answer to the complaint, the respondents denied negligence and raised as an affirmative defense immunity from liability under section
440.11....
...On motion for rehearing, the district court added the certified questions set forth above. Id. The first question certified presents two distinct issues. The first deals with whether a general contractor who employs an independent contractor insulates itself from common law liability pursuant to section 440.11 when it procures compensation coverage for the independent contractor by deducting the premiums for the coverage from wages due the independent contractor in accordance with the parties' contract....
...First, although it is not apparent from a simple reading of the Workers' Compensation Law, our review of the applicable provisions of the Law leads us to the conclusion that an otherwise unimmune general contractor brings itself within the safeguards of section 440.11 when, as per the parties' contract, it procures workers' compensation coverage for the benefit of an independent contractor by deducting the coverage premiums from payments due the independent contractor....
...Strickland v. Al Landers Dump Trucks, Inc.,
170 So.2d 445, 446 (Fla. 1964). Therefore, the employer of an independent contractor is not required to secure to such an excluded individual the payment of workers' compensation and thus is not entitled to section
440.11 immunity from civil suit for work-related injuries suffered by the independent contractor. §§
440.10,
440.11, Fla....
...ploy one who is excluded or exempted from the operation of the Law to voluntarily assume the obligations and privileges of the Workers' Compensation Law in relation to that individual and thereby insulate itself from common law liability pursuant to section 440.11....
...As noted in the majority's analysis in connection with question one, nowhere in chapter 440 is it clearly provided that a general contractor secures the payment of compensation for an independent contractor for purposes of the waiver of exemption provisions of section
440.04, thus limiting its liability under section
440.11, by deducting the cost of compensation premiums from the independent contractor's wages....
...As I read this record, there are factual matters that must be resolved by the trial court before the principles set forth in connection with the first question certified should be applied in this case. BARKETT, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1983), provides in pertinent part: 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
CopyCited 72 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...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....
...y 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....
...), 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 exclusiveness of liability provisions of § 440.11 from action at law or in admiralty on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor." Appellant moved for summary judgment, relying on the law as it existed at the time the alleged tort was committed....
...f 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....
...White, supra, this Court found a portion of the no-fault statute to be unconstitutional because a claimant was denied access to the court for recovery of property damage without being supplied with any commensurate remedy. In Sunspan Eng'r & Constr. Co., supra, we questioned the constitutionality of Section 440.11....
...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." [3] § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 70 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2000 WL 232595
...Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation § 65.10 (Desk ed.1999). For employees within the statute's reach, workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for "accidental injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment." §
440.09(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also §
440.11, Fla....
...ts for employers covered by the statute. At the same time, however, the statutory scheme itself explicitly recognizes the liability of co-employees to injured employees under certain limited conditions, including intentional or reckless actions. See § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 59 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 602, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2916
...ght suit against Shenandoah. The Florida Workers' Compensation Act provides for the payment of compensation benefits whenever disability or death results from an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. §
440.09(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that compensation under the act is the exclusive remedy available to such an employee....
...hen one is presented has the same effect. The district court of appeal erred in holding that the Workers' Compensation Law precludes actions against employers for intentional torts. The district court reasoned that the Workers' Compensation Statute, section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that Workers' Compensation is exclusive and in place of all other liability, and that the same provision allows an employee to maintain a common law cause of action for intentional tort against a fellow employee but is silent in regard to employers....
CopyCited 59 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1954 Fla. LEXIS 1403
...His immunity from suit is commensurate with his liability for securing compensation no more and no less. 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...
CopyCited 55 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1993 WL 502594
...Auslander of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A., Miami, amicus curiae for the Florida Food and Fuel Retailers. OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Shova v. Eller,
606 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), in which the Second District Court of Appeal found the 1988 amendment to section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which is a part of the Workers' Compensation Law, to be unconstitutional....
...The trial judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that workers' compensation provided the exclusive remedy to Shova's estate because Shova had failed to allege that the defendants had committed an act for which they could be imprisoned for more than sixty days as required under section 440.11(1). On appeal, the Second District found that the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1) was unconstitutional and violated the access to courts provision contained in article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution....
...To properly evaluate the issues in this case, we first set forth the history of immunity under the Workers' Compensation Law (the Act). Under the Act, workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy available to an injured employee as to any negligence on the part of that employee's employer. § 440.11(1)....
...*540 Because the Law, at that time, expressly reserved to an injured employee a concurrent remedy against a third party tortfeasor, we held that the immunity afforded employers under the Law did not extend to coemployees. In 1978, the legislature, through an amendment to section 440.11(1), did, in fact, limit the liability of employees who injure fellow employees through acts of simple negligence....
...he degree of negligence necessary to maintain a tort action did not abolish a right to redress for an injury. See McMillan v. Nelson,
149 Fla. 334,
5 So.2d 867 (1942). Similarly, because the limitation of liability contained in the 1978 amendment to section
440.11(1) merely limited the liability of coemployees as to simple negligence and still provided a cause of action for gross negligence, we determined that the limitation merely changed the degree of negligence necessary to sue and did not unconstitutionally abolish a cause of action. Thereafter, in Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1987), we held that the term "coemployee" as used in section
440.11(1) included vice-principal-type coemployees. Under our interpretation, corporate officers, executives, and supervisors could be sued as coemployees for acts of gross negligence. We stated in Streeter that we believed section
440.11(1) "to be an unambiguous statement of the legislature's desire to impose liability on all employees who act with gross negligence with respect to their fellow employees, regardless of the grossly negligent employee's corporate status."
509 So.2d at 270. As a result of our decision in Streeter, in 1988 the legislature again amended section
440.11(1). As amended, section
440.11(1) provides as follows: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...ut providing an alternative. The Final Staff Analysis issued by the Commerce Committee of the Florida House of Representatives sets forth the following regarding the 1988 amendment: The only exception to the exclusivity doctrine was enacted in 1978. Section 440.11(1), F.S., permits tort suits against fellow-employees who act with willful and wanton disregard, unprovoked physical aggression or gross negligence with respect to another employee....
...tatutory cause of action unless a reasonable alternative to that action is provided or unless an overpowering public necessity exists for abolishing the right or action. Consequently, under Kluger, we must determine: 1) whether the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1) abolished a preexisting right of access; 2) if so, whether a reasonable alternative exists to protect that preexisting right of access; and 3) if no reasonable alternative exists, whether an overwhelming public necessity exists to i...
...s not limit an existing right of access. We disagree with the district court's finding that the amendment abolished all civil causes of action in negligence. Culpable negligence is still a form of negligence and is actionable as a civil action under section 440.11(1) regardless of whether criminal charges have been filed against a coemployee....
...Because we find that the amendment did not abolish a cause of action and that workers' compensation provides a reasonable alternative, we need not reach the third prong of the Kluger test. Consequently, for the reasons expressed, we find the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1) to be constitutional....
...Eller,
606 So.2d at 410 (Altenbernd, J., dissenting). Whether we agree or disagree with the legislature's decision to afford heightened immunity to managerial coemployees, we find that it is well within its province to provide that immunity. Accordingly, we find that the 1988 amendment to section
440.11(1) is constitutional and that it does not violate article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution....
CopyCited 54 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...We affirm." [5] Based upon the foregoing facts, the District Court held that: "As to the owners, from the allegations of the complaint they were acting in concert with the general contractor and, therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of the immunity provided by § 440.11, Fla....
...OWNERS The District Court affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, of the complaint against the owners because, "from the allegations of the complaint they were acting in concert with the general contractor and, therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of the immunity provided by § 440.11, Fla....
...y irrelevant factor. In the landmark case of Jones v. Florida Power Corp., supra , the then Mr. Chief Justice Roberts succinctly stated the basic formula for determining whether one is immune from third-party tort suit, pursuant to the provisions of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, 1971, F.S.A....
CopyCited 52 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Rufus Pennington, III of Margol, Freyfield & Pennington, Jacksonville, for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae. KOGAN, Justice. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has certified the following question as being one of great public importance: DOES SECTION 440.11(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983) PERMIT SUITS AGAINST CORPORATE EMPLOYER OFFICERS, EXECUTIVES, AND SUPERVISORS AS "EMPLOYEES" FOR ACTS OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO PROVIDE A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE IN WHICH OTHER EMPLOYEES MAY WORK? Sullivan v....
...e proximately caused Suzanne's death. The trial court granted all defendant's motions for summary judgment and Sullivan appealed. The Fourth District affirmed the summary judgment as to Atlantic, but reversed as to Streeter and Melcher, holding that section 440.11(1) expressly imposes liability upon grossly negligent employees....
...The Kaplans petitioned the Second District for a writ of prohibition on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Stanlick's complaint. The court granted the writ, holding that corporate officers are not employees; rather they are employers entitled to the immunity under section 440.11(1). The court certified that its decision was in express conflict with Sullivan. [1] The liability or immunity of all defendants rests upon our interpretation of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....
...The defendants request this Court to define the term "employee," for the purposes of this statute, to exclude corporate officers who are performing the employer's nondelegable duty to maintain a safe work-place. In defining the term "employee," as used in section
440.11(1), we turn to the definitional section of the Worker's Compensation Act, section
440.02....
...See State v. Egan,
287 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1973). Were these provisions even slightly ambiguous, an examination of legislative history and statutory construction principles would be necessary. We believe, however, that the plain language of sections
440.01 and
440.11(1) precludes any further explanation of legislative intent. These statutes unambiguously impose liability on all employees for their gross negligence resulting in death or injury to their fellow employees. This imposition of liability is blind to corporate status. Nowhere does section
440.11(1) impose upon injured employees a requirement to show that the fellow employee has committed some affirmative act going beyond the scope of the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe place to work. We are not inclined to read such a requirement into the statute when it is plainly not there. The affirmative act doctrine has its roots in cases interpreting section
440.11(1) before it was amended in 1978. [4] Those cases [5] did not have the benefit of the legislature's statement expressly imposing liability on grossly negligent employees who injure other employees. The basis of those opinions was legislatively abrogated by section
440.11(1). Thus, to the extent that those cases conflict with this opinion (as well as section
440.11(1), as amended), we disapprove of them....
...Egan,
287 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973). To attempt to discern the legislative intent when the language is so plain would be both unnecessary and futile. The statute herein serves as ample evidence of what the legislature intended. [6] *272 The 1978 amendment to section
440.11(1) authorizes actions against all fellow employees for acts of gross negligence resulting in injury to other employees....
...son work on an every day basis. Therefore, the defendants contend, the term "fellow employee" could only refer to nonsupervisory employees. We are equally disinclined to follow this line of reasoning. Again, we must stress that the plain language of section 440.11(1) fully precludes any such interpretation....
...By "fellow employees," the statute clearly is intended to include all employees, not just nonsupervisory employees. The legislature has expressed the policy of this state to impose liability upon those employees who injure a co-employee by their grossly negligent behavior. This policy was plainly and unambiguously stated in section 440.11(1), and we are bound by it. We are further bound by the statutory definition of the term "employee," which includes with equal clarity corporate officers and supervisors. The context of section 440.11(1) does not clearly require any other definition of employee. As such, the statutory definition is controlling. It would be inappropriate for this Court to read any more into section 440.11(1) than what is plainly there....
...consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Ret.), concur. OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which McDONALD, C.J., concurs. OVERTON, Justice, dissenting. I dissent. The majority's interpretation of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), was clearly not the intent of the legislature when it brought corporate officers, executives, and supervisors within the benefits of the worker's compensation act....
...denied,
399 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1981); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Scofi,
366 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied,
378 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1979); West v. Jessop,
339 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). While some of the cases were decided after the 1978 amendment to section
440.11(1), their decisions are based on the affirmative act doctrine which was conceived prior to that amendment. [6] Even were this Court to indulge itself with an examination of the legislative history of section
440.11(1) we would have considerable difficulty....
CopyCited 52 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 774, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 2243, 2004 WL 2815321
...[2] See Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc.,
326 F.3d 1190, 1194 (11th Cir.2003). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(6), Florida Constitution. [3] See infra note 7. [4] The Workers' Compensation Law is codified in chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section
440.11, the exclusive-remedy provision, provides that the liability of the employer for the benefits prescribed under the Workers' Compensation Law "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability ... of such employer to... the employee." §
440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). [5] In 2003, the Legislature codified the intentional-tort exception and, in doing so, modified the standard announced in Turner. See ch.2003-412, § 14, at 3890-91, Laws of Fla. Under the current version of section
440.11, an injured employee can satisfy the intentional tort-exception, and thereby avoid the exclusive-remedy provision of section
440.11(1), only by proving by clear and convincing evidence that his employer "deliberately intended to injure him" or that his employer engaged in conduct that the employer knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings speci...
...e, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11(1)(b)(2), Fla....
CopyCited 51 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 97
...The car was leased to Xerox Corporation and was left at the Sears Auto Center for repairs. Boynton first brought suit against Sears, Xerox, and their insurance carriers. He voluntarily dismissed his suit against Sears and its insurer because Sears was immune from tort suit under section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
...jury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. However, the coverage required under this section shall not be applicable when, or to the extent that, any insured named in the policy shall reject the coverage. (Emphasis added.) [2] 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
CopyCited 41 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 619, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2895
...her. As we stated in Fisher, the Florida Workers' Compensation Act provides for the payment of compensation benefits whenever disability or death results from an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. §
440.09(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979), states that compensation under the act shall be the exclusive remedy available to such an employee....
...Clearly, the facts alleged in the third amended complaint cannot support a finding of such certainty. Although the complaint may indeed allege a prima facie case of gross negligence, the act makes no distinction among degrees of negligence. Seaboard Coastline Railroad v. Smith,
359 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1978); §
440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 40 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Similar results have been reached in cases addressing constitutional challenges to the worker's compensation law which, as recognized by Kluger, provides in general a reasonable alternative to common law tort actions. Specific sections of Chapter 440, most notably section 440.11, which provides for exclusivity of remedy, have also withstood access to court challenges....
...1st DCA 1973); Carter v. Sims Crane Service, Inc.,
198 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1967). In at least two cases, the exception to the Kluger rule has been applied to workers' compensation statutes. Thus, in Iglesia v. Floran,
394 So.2d 994 (Fla. 1981), the constitutionality of section
440.11, relating to actions of claimants against negligent co-employees, was upheld because the court found that the statute merely modified the degree of negligence required, rather than abolishing the right of action....
CopyCited 38 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...As Corrected On Denial of Rehearing June 13, 1978. William H. Davis of Giles, Hedrick & Robinson, Orlando, for appellant. Janis M. Halker of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, Orlando, for appellees. PER CURIAM. [*] The primary question for decision here is the constitutionality of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1975), [1] insofar as it grants *428 immunity from suit for contribution by a third party tortfeasor to an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act when negligence was a proximate cause of the damages suffered by the employee....
...[2] In addition, appellant also asserts that an active tortfeasor has a right to implied indemnification for lawful damages he has paid to an injured third party from a joint tortfeasor who was guilty of willful and wanton misconduct which contributed to the injuries. We hold that the questioned statute (Section
440.11, Florida Statutes) is constitutional, that an employer is not liable in tort to a third party tortfeasor under Section
768.31, Florida Statutes, under the circumstances argued and that an active tortfeasor does not have a right to impl...
...d party tortfeasor on account of injury or death to his employees. The sole and total liability of such employer is that defined in the Act itself. Moreover, we find no constitutional infirmity because of the grant of immunity to such employer under Section 440.11, supra....
...of no consequence. There is no semblance of suggestion in these statutes that the Legislature intended to make any distinction in degrees of negligence so far as the employer's immunity is concerned and we see no reason or logic in any distinction. Section 440.11, supra, precludes an employer from being designated a person "jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property" as used in the contribution act....
...ncisely prohibit that course. We will nothing ours is the responsibility to construe and interpret. But, as here, where the answers are found in the statutes, it is unnecessary to do more than point that out. As to the constitutional challenge of Section 440.11, as set forth above, we adopt as ours the views expressed in Coates v....
...OVERTON, C.J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur. 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, ......
CopyCited 35 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Chorak filed suit in circuit court against appellees seeking compensatory damages for these same injuries. Mrs. Chorak joined as a plaintiff seeking derivative damages. 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 repres...
...Chorak to submit to a physical examination, and reverse the summary judgment entered for Mr. Naughton. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BOARDMAN and OTT, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] While not applicable to the instant action which arose before it was adopted, we note that the 1978 Amendment to section 440.11(1), effective July 1, 1979, supports our opinion reached on an analysis of the relevant case law. § 440.11(1) provides: [T]he same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter....
CopyCited 35 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1701, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4561, 1996 WL 173026
...ntiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46,
78 S.Ct. 99, 102,
2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). *566 The exclusivity rule relied on by defendant is derived from Florida Statute section
440.11(1) which provides that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy and "in place of all other liability of such employer ......
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 19935
...problems, liver damage, brain tumors, pulmonary disease, cancer, and other disorders. The issues are: (1) whether the allegations of battery and fraud and deceit are sufficient to overcome the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (Section
440.11, Florida Statutes); (2) whether the trial court erred in dismissing claims based on public nuisance (Section
376.205, Florida Statutes); (3) whether the trial court erred in dismissing claims based on common law and statutory strict li...
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 6 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 834, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 35031, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 36, 759, 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 427
...Borg Warner moved for summary judgment on the tort claims in Count II and Count III, arguing that any injury sustained by Ms. Studstill was covered by Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. As such, any claim for physical injury was barred by the exclusivity defense of the Act, § 440.11.2....
...The cases followed by the district court in dismissing Counts II and III of this action are unequivocal. In Brown v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.,
469 So.2d 155 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.1985) (en banc) the plaintiff alleged that her male supervisor grabbed her breast. The court held that her claim for alleged battery was barred by section
440.11, the exclusivity defense....
...The Florida court held otherwise, stating: Regardless of what label we place on the tort, the fact is that the act which appellants claim directly caused the mental distress for which damages are sought is the act of grabbing Ms. Brown’s breast. Appellant’s tort claims based thereon are barred by section 440.11....
...The district court is the proper forum for determining whether plaintiff should be 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....
...hird party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife ... and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer ... on account of such injury or death. 2 . In the interest of clarity, we note that section 440.11 bars any other action against an employer....
CopyCited 32 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...has not acquired any "rights, powers and privileges" under the laws of this State, Section 613.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., so that it is not entitled to take advantage of the "exclusiveness of remedy" provisions of our Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
...ilar 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)....
CopyCited 30 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 110, 1995 Fla. LEXIS 375, 1995 WL 94412
...l action to recover for Lewis' negligence. Because section
768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), immunized Lewis from personal liability, the civil action was maintained against the School Board. The School Board sought summary judgment pursuant to section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), alleging that workers' compensation was Duffell's exclusive remedy....
...tance of benefits and the settlement of his worker's compensation claims, again moved for summary judgment in the civil action. The motion was denied, and the School Board appealed. In affirming the trial court's ruling, the district court held that section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that workers' compensation is not a claimant's exclusive remedy as to liability of a fellow employee when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works....
...injured worker who accepts benefits from an employer is entitled to maintain a separate civil action against a negligent co-employee assigned to unrelated works. The instant case involves the simultaneous operation of two Florida Statutes; sections
440.11 and
768.28. Section
440.11(1) provides that an employer's liability under workers' compensation is exclusive and in place of all other liability as to third-party tortfeasors and employees....
...However, this same section contains exceptions under which the employee immunity is not applicable. One such exception is where employees of the same employer operating in furtherance of the employer's business are assigned primarily to unrelated work. 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
...Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable ... to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...shall be by action against the governmental entity... . §
768.28(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). Because the legislature is silent with respect to the simultaneous operation of these statutes, we are guided by the plain and obvious meanings of both statutes. Turning first to section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), we note that the employer immunity provision does not nullify the additional statutory rights conferred in the same section. Section
440.11(1) was amended in 1978 to extend tort immunity for workplace accidents to employees and to allow an injured worker to sue a negligent co-employee "when each is operating in the furtherance of the [same] employer's business but they are...
...ious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property." Id. There is no statutory exception to the government's liability. The School Board argues that it nevertheless enjoys absolute immunity under section
440.11(1) because the legislature did *1179 not intend sections
440.11(1) and
768.28(9)(a) to be read in pari materia. We disagree. Absent an express declaration, we cannot assume that the legislature intended the employer immunity provisions of section
440.11(1) to trump the express language of section
768.28(9)(a)....
...1975), appeal dismissed,
429 U.S. 803,
97 S.Ct. 34,
50 L.Ed.2d 63 (1976). As such, it is illogical to assume the legislature's 1980 amendment to section
768.28(9) was intended to eviscerate the public employee's statutory right to redress injury under section
440.11(1), while the private employee's statutory right to redress injury under the same section remains intact. A contrary interpretation facilitates unequal treatment among public and private employees. We hold that Duffell is entitled to pursue his claim against Lewis as expressly set forth in sections
440.11(1) and
440.39(1)....
...First, the legislature has provided an exception to the ordinary rule that an employee who is injured on the job by the negligence of a fellow employee may not sue for damages, and is only entitled to a recovery of worker's compensation benefits. The exception set out in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp....
...This scenario appears to be rather straight-forward when a private employer is involved. However, the legislature obviously intended that a public employee be entitled to this same exception, i.e., the right to sue a fellow employee engaged in unrelated work, since the legislature used the words in section
440.11 "unrelated works within private or public employment." So, what does a public employee do when she wants to assert an unrelated works negligence claim against a fellow public employee? The legislative scheme set out in section
768.28(9), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...of reasonably adequate and certain payment for workplace accidents; and (2) to replace an unwieldy tort system that made it virtually impossible for businesses to predict or insure for the cost of industrial accidents. Consistent with this purpose, section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), states in part: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...injured employee, or the legal representative thereof in case 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. In 1978, section 440.11 was amended to add the following language: The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter....
...By virtue of its interpretation of these statutes, the majority concludes that an injured employee has a cause of action in tort against his governmental employer in addition to collecting workers' compensation from his employer. This holding totally ignores section 440.11(1) which mandates that the employee's exclusive remedy against his employer for on-the-job injuries is workers' compensation. Despite the apparent conflict, I believe that the statutes can be harmonized when the underlying purpose of each is analyzed. In cases where an employee is injured through the negligence of a fellow employee, section 440.11(1) reflects a clear intent that the employee's only remedy against the employer will be through the collection of workers' compensation benefits....
...employees against fellow employees. However, the statute does protect a governmental employee who injures a third party except in cases of willful or wanton misconduct. In this manner, the words "within private or public employment" as contained in section 440.11 are given effect because the injured employee has the same rights in both public or private employment....
CopyCited 30 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ERVIN (Retired), Justice. We consider a petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, to review that court's interlocutory order in this case. The interlocutory order held unconstitutional Section 440.11(1), F.S....
..., Florida Constitution, F.S.A., and insofar as it violates such third party plaintiff's rights to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Article I, Section 2, Florida Constitution, and Amendment XIV, Sections 1 and 2, United States Constitution. Section 440.11(1), F.S....
...to the extent involved herein was enacted by the Legislature as Chapter 71-190 and became law July 19, 1971. 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....
...ompany, alleging that Sunspan is or may be liable to Spring-Lock for all or part of Hayden's claim for the negligent construction or operation of the scaffolding tower. Sunspan moved to dismiss the third party complaint on the ground that Section *6 440.11(1), F.S....
...After hearing thereon, the circuit court denied the motion and ruled the statute unconstitutional and entered his record proper interlocutory order to that effect, i.e., the order under review herein. Since the trial court's interlocutory order passed upon the constitutionality of Section 440.11(1), F.S....
...it is reviewable here by certiorari and we exercised our discretion to issue the writ. See Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, as construed in Burnsed v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company (Fla.),
290 So.2d 13. It is our view we should sustain the interlocutory order and hold the statute, Section
440.11(1), F.S., unconstitutional as applied in this case. The trial court's order specifically reads as follows: "1. Section
440.11 Fla.Stats....
...(1972) and the, `no contribution among joint tort-feasors' rule of Florida have no bearing on Counts I and II of the Third Party Complaint since those counts sound in contract. All other grounds for dismissing Counts I and II are without merit. "2. As to Count III, this Court specifically finds: a. Section 440.11 Fla.Stats....
...(1972) is unconstitutional insofar as it precludes Third Party Plaintiff from its right to access to the Courts and insofar as it abrogates Third Party Plaintiff's common law right of action against Third Party Defendant, all in violation of Art. I § 21, Fla. Const. Section 440.11 is also unconstitutional insofar as it violates Third Party Plaintiff's right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Art....
...oes paragraph 2a, and afford no basis for certiorari review thereof under the Constitution. Going directly to a review of paragraph 2a of the interlocutory order, we first call attention to the fact that prior to the enactment of Ch. 71-190 amending Section 440.11, F.S., this Court in Trail Builders Supply Co....
...itled to protection from arbitrary laws. Pritchard v. Norton (1882),
106 U.S. 124,
1 S.Ct. 102,
27 L.Ed. 104; Ross v. Gore (Fla. 1950),
48 So.2d 412; State ex rel. Vars v. Knott (1938),
135 Fla. 206,
184 So. 752. The arbitrary classification of F.S. §
440.11(1) falls only on those third persons who may supply, sell to, manufacture for, or otherwise deal with workmen's compensation employers who are involved in workmen's compensation accidents. Third party tort-feasors in such classification are excluded by §
440.11(1) from seeking indemnity against an employer where the employee is injured in an industrial accident....
...The Act provides a one-way street for employer. We do not undertake in this review of the interlocutory order to pass upon questions falling outside the scope of the order's treatment of Count III. Our holding does not directly touch upon whether Florida Statute § 440.11(1) precludes a third party tort-feasor from bringing an action for indemnification upon a contractual theory of liability nor do we pass upon the general question whether the rule "no contribution among joint tort-feasors" is any longer valid in Florida. Our opinion is limited to a holding that the alleged liability of the employer to the Respondents is not barred by F.S. § 440.11(1) because we agree that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to Count III of the third party cause of action....
CopyCited 29 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 91884
...Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 6, 1990. FERGUSON, Judge. Appellant, the widow of an airline co-pilot who was killed in the course of his employment, brought this wrongful death action against the employer, Arrow Air, alleging that the workers' compensation immunity provided by section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), is not a bar because the employer's conduct which caused her husband's death was so outrageous as to amount to an intentional tort....
CopyCited 28 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21393941
...of the defense. Vause v. Bay Med. Ctr.,
687 So.2d 258, 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We conclude that Mrs. Sierra's second amended complaint did not conclusively demonstrate that Florida's Workers' Compensation Law immunized AMI and BCWI from liability. Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1997), protects employers from tort liability for injuries to their employees except in limited situations identified in the statute....
...Cool,
547 So.2d 975, 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (recognizing that test for proving wanton and willful acts exception to employee immunity in section
768.28(9)(a) is more stringent than gross negligence exception to coemployee workers' compensation immunity in section
440.11(1))....
CopyCited 27 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1950 Fla. LEXIS 1597
...l contractor," and that, therefore, it was proper to submit to the jury the question of whether or not the subcontracts were, in fact, executed *844 by the owner of the property and not by a "general contractor." This contention cannot be sustained. Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, same F.S.A., provides that "The liability of an employer * * * shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer * * * except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as requi...
...the burden of having to meet the defenses of the fellow servant rule, contributory negligence, and the like. Certainly, then, if the plaintiff were here seeking to hold the general contractor, C.F. Wheeler, Builder, to its statutory liability under Section 440.11, we do not think that the general contractor could claim a "third party" status, with the defensive advantages thereof, by pleading the facts here relied on by plaintiff....
CopyCited 27 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1993 WL 74253
...Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for respondents. HARDING, Justice. We have for review Dobbins v. Weber,
585 So.2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question as one of great public importance: DO THE IMMUNITIES PROVIDED BY SECTION
440.11, FLORIDA STATUTES (1983), EXTEND TO A CORPORATE OFFICER WHO ELECTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION
440.05, TO EXEMPT HIMSELF FROM COVERAGE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 440? Id....
...ck-mounted crane be positioned in close proximity to the power lines; and 2) he failed to provide insulation or removal of the power lines prior to the sign removal. Weber moved for summary judgment based on the grounds of the immunity provisions in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1983), and that his actions did not constitute gross negligence....
...er had "filed an election not to be covered with the Division of Worker's Compensation." Weber again filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, Dobbins argued that because of Weber's election, Weber could not be considered a co-employee under section
440.11 and thus was not covered by the immunity provisions of the section. The trial court disagreed and granted Weber's motion for summary judgment on the second amended complaint. On appeal, the district court strictly construed section
440.11(1) in conjunction with section
440.02(11)(d)(4), Florida Statutes (1983), which specifically excludes from the definition of "employee" "[a]ny officer of a corporation who elects to be exempt from coverage under this chapter." Applying this definition of "employee" to section
440.11(1), the district court held that Weber's rejection of coverage removed him from the statutory immunity granted to "employees" by section
440.11, and that no other provision extended the immunity of section
440.11 to Weber. Therefore, the district court reversed the trial court and certified the question to this Court. The issue here is whether the district court erred in applying the definition of "employee" found in section
440.02(11)(d)(4), to section
440.11(1), which grants statutory immunities under the Workers' Compensation Laws....
...n as provided in s.
440.05. §
440.02(11)(b), Fla. Stat. (1983). Further, the statute expressly excludes from the definition of employee, "[a]ny officer of a corporation who elects to be exempt from coverage under this chapter." §
440.02(11)(d)(4). Section
440.11(1), [1] which grants immunities from liability claims, reads in pertinent part: The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as *959 well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter. Although the language of both these sections is clear, the word "employee" in section
440.11(1) is used in a different context than that contemplated by the definition of "employee" in section
440.02(11). Section
440.02 defines the term "employee" in the context of those persons who are entitled to file claims under the Worker's Compensation Law. In contrast, the term "employee" in section
440.11 is used in the context of granting statutory immunities provided by the Workers' Compensation Laws....
...of injured employees. Moreover, it could be argued that because an employee's immunity is tied to those "same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer," the employer's decision not to be covered strips the employees of any immunity as well. § 440.11(1). Ostensibly, then the corporate officers or business owner could sue a fellow employee for injuries caused by job-related negligence. If the Court applied a literal interpretation of the statutory definition of "employee" to section 440.11, the result would lead to an unreasonable or ridiculous conclusion. Therefore, we hold that the district court erred in finding that Weber's exemption of workers' compensation coverage removed him from the immunities granted by section 440.11....
...BARKETT, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur. BARKETT, Chief Justice, dissenting. I believe the district court was correct in finding that Weber's rejection of coverage removed him from the statutory immunity granted to an "employee" by section 440.11....
...slative intent. Hamm,
414 So.2d at 1073. This case does not satisfy those tests. Section
440.02(11)(d)(4) expressly excludes from the definition of "employee" "[a]ny officer of a corporation who elects to be exempt from coverage under this chapter." Section
440.11(1) extends immunity from liability to an "employee." Weber's rejection of workers' compensation coverage thus removed him from the immunity provision of section
440.11(1), and nothing in the Workers' Compensation Act extends the immunity of section
440.11 to a person outside the statutory definition of "employee." SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] While not persuasive in our discussion today, we note that the legislature has amended section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), to extend the immunity granted under the statute. See ch. 88-284, § 1, Laws of Fla. The amended statute, section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), reads in relevant part: The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any sole proprietor, partner, corporate officer or director, supervisor or other person who in the course and...
CopyCited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...judgment. The applicable statutory sections are: §
440.02(2)(a), defining a minor child as an "employee"; §§
440.03 [1969],
440.05 [1969] and 440.07 [1969], giving the employee opportunity to accept or reject the Act as part of the work contract; §
440.11, making the Act the exclusive source of liability of the employer if the employee has accepted the Act; §
440.16, making compensation for death relate directly to dependency, except for funeral expenses in the amount of $500.00; §
440.16(2)(e), allowing recovery to parents only if dependent....
...486, answered this question in the affirmative and we think correctly. Appellant contends that it was not the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act to exclude the father from recovering damages for mental pain and suffering in a case like this, but we think Section 440.11, F.S.A....
...Protracted litigation is superseded by an expeditious system of recovery. Protectu Awning Shutter Co. v. Cline,
154 Fla. 30,
16 So.2d 342 (1944); Duff Hotel Co. v. Ficara,
150 Fla. 442,
7 So.2d 790 (1942). Third, the concept of exclusiveness of remedy embodied in Fla. Stat. §
440.11, F.S.A....
...e temporarily acting in the course and scope of his employment and while he was covered by workmen's compensation, even though the Workmen's Compensation Act provides no coverage in this case. In support of its position, the majority points out that Section 440.11 provides that Chapter 440 shall furnish exclusive remedies to those electing workmen's compensation coverage and suffering injuries or death while so covered....
CopyCited 24 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 520, 1996 WL 18791
...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. Section
440.11(1) of the Act provides that employees who are covered by workers' compensation are subject to the exclusive remedies of the statute for injuries that arise out of and in the course of employment as a result of the negligence of their employer....
...Instead, she attempts to hold Margate responsible for Ebersold's negligent failure to resolve repeated complaints about Scheer's misconduct. In support of her position, Vernon relies on the holding in Gomez v. Metro-Dade County,
801 F.Supp. 674 (S.D.Fla.1992). In that case, a court in this District held that section
440.11(1) did not bar a claim based on the employer's negligent retention and supervision of the employee who committed the alleged acts of harassment.
801 F.Supp. at 683. In light of our ruling that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Florida law, we do not reach the question of whether Gomez misapprehends Byrd, or the extent to which Fla.Stat. §
440.11(1) otherwise bars the Plaintiff's cause of action for negligent failure to prevent sexual harassment.
CopyCited 23 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...440 and the statutory immunities which evolved from an acceptance of those duties. The opinion stated: "* * * Certainly, then, if the plaintiff were here seeking to hold the general contractor, C.F. Wheeler, Builder, to its statutory liability under Section 440.11, we do not think that the general contractor could claim a `third party' status, with the defensive advantages thereof, by pleading the facts here relied on by plaintiff....
...ecured. Auchter cannot escape this statutory liability merely because it owns the property upon which the building will be built. Had Auchter not secured payment of compensation to these employees, it would have been subject to the penalties of *246 § 440.11; but, since it did, the Auchter Company should be entitled to the immunity of exclusive liability and not subjected to third party tort-feasor liability....
CopyCited 22 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 46965
...Baker argues that these omissions rose to the level of conduct that overrides workers' compensation immunity. In August 1992, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of these two defendants on the basis of the immunity provided to corporate officers and supervisors in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...of the construction site. This fact was known by Mr. Ross, but was not known by Mr. McGaugh at the time of the accident. As site superintendent, Mr. Ross was regularly at the job site, whereas Mr. McGaugh was there only occasionally. For purposes of section 440.11(1), it is clear that Mr....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 525289
...ctors' 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....
...our statutes declare, and none of our courts has decided, that a failure to secure payment of compensation disestablishes the statutory employer-employee relationship. We specifically hold that there is no such disestablishment. Second, pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989), [4] Perez' liability remained under the workers' compensation law notwithstanding his failure to secure payment of compensation....
...il to secure coverage, then the contractor has an employer's liability to the subcontractor's injured employee for purposes of an *893 action for statutory benefits or damages at law or in admiralty." [e.s.] The "employer's liability" is pursuant to section 440.11(1), thus Perez' obligation to Revoredo is one "under a workers' compensation......
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Old Republic moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to resolve this compensation dispute. When Old Republic's motion to dismiss was denied and its affirmative defense (asserting that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction and the claim was barred by Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)) [1] was stricken, it filed its petition for writ of prohibition with this court....
...cuit court is without jurisdiction over an employee's action for additional damages for injuries covered by the Act. Winn-Lovett Tampa, Inc. v. Murphree,
73 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1954). Likewise, because the exclusivity and immunity provisions of the Act, §
440.11, Fla....
...onperformance of a statutory duty imposed by the Act. As the Sullivan court stated in affirming the dismissal of the complaint: "Sullivan also contends that he sufficiently alleged a cause of action against the insurer for intentionally harming him. Section 440.11(2) provides exceptions to the immunity granted in the case of certain willful assaults [physical aggression] and automobile accidents....
...Accordingly, we conclude that the Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction over Bird's action, and the petition for writ of prohibition is granted. We are confident that it is unnecessary for us to issue the writ, and we therefore remand the cause to the Circuit Court with directions to dismiss the complaint. NOTES [1] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981), provides, in essence, that the liability of an employer which, as here, has brought itself within the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer ......
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...On July 23, 1982, the same robber returned to the Davie branch and, in the course of the robbery, he shot and killed Mrs. Sullivan. The threshold question we must consider is whether plaintiff's wrongful death claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...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. Thus, under the exclusiveness of liability provisions of section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1979), [2] Cadillac was immune from suit by Cespedes for injuries he sustained in the construction of this home....
...On the other lot (Cadillac's lot) Cadillac had purchased the land prior to contracting with a prospective home purchaser. The court bifurcated the jury verdict form in order to determine the location of the accident, ruling that Cadillac would not enjoy the immunity of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979), if the accident had occurred on Cadillac's lot....
...unt 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 allow in ev...
...e from tort suit by employees injured in the course of their employment. §
440.10, Fla. Stat. (1979). "Contractors" who sublet work become statutory "employers" of their subcontractors' employees for the purpose of securing payment of compensation. §
440.11(1), Fla....
...t or obligation to perform work by the alleged subcontractors is with the owner-builder and where the true relationship of contractor and subcontractor does not exist. The relationship is the predicate upon which the exclusion expressly set forth in section 440.11 is based....
...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 employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment... . [2] 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Faircloth, was entitled to immunity from suit under chapter 440, Workmen's Compensation Law. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment determining the defendant, Ervin E. Faircloth, to be an independent subcontractor as a matter of law and entitled to immunity under the provisions of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...did not exclude coverage of those employees who were neither pilot nor crew. "The defendants and intervenor also filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the exclusive remedy of workmen's compensation barred the suit *320 under 15 F.S.A. §
440.11 and that §
440.04(3) ......
...We think there can be no question that the purpose and effect of Fla. Stat. §
440.04, F.S.A., is to empower an exempt employer to voluntarily assume the obligations and privileges of the Workmen's Compensation Act and thereby insulate himself from common law liability pursuant to Fla. Stat. §
440.11, F.S.A....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...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....
...ily 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....
...o 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....
...Thus even when a subcontractor agrees to secure coverage for its employees, a prudent contractor will 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....
...secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor 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....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2004 WL 3770569, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23353
...The Tilton estate maintained that these events and others establish that Royal Oak knew or should have known that the dangerous condition at the Ocala facility was substantially certain to result in bodily injury to Mr. Tilton. [8] See Doc. 140. [9] § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8375
...[5] Allen v. Employers Service Corporation,
243 So.2d 454 (2 Fla.App. 1971). [6] See Mullarkey v. Florida Feed Mills, Inc.,
268 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1972), wherein the Supreme Court stated: "... the concept of exclusiveness of remedy embodied in Fla. Stat. §
440.11, F.S.A....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 464
...o earning capacity, are not compensable under the Act. The Workers' Compensation Act affords the exclusive remedy for recovery of damages arising from compensable, or potentially compensable injuries falling within its purview. See Grice, supra, and Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides: 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
...al torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In my judgment it is fundamentally inconsistent, as applied to the facts of this case, for the majority to say on the one hand that the plaintiff's action is barred by the exclusivity provisions of section 440.11, Florida Statutes, because the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, but then to say that respondeat superior cannot apply because at the time the intentional acts were committed, the assailant was not acting in the course of his employment....
...ing in another. Restated, if the injury which occurred were a covered compensable injury, a later tort action would be barred on the ground that the injury was one arising within the course and scope of employment under the exclusivity provisions of section 440.11, but not, as stated by the majority, on the ground that the employee's tort was not committed during the course of his employment....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...In Carroll, Justice Drew, sitting as an associate judge with the First District, stated for the court: The question presented for decision here is whether a Workmen's Compensation Carrier has the immunity of its insured employer against a common law action by an employee under Section 440.11, F.S.A....
...That relief, however, is his sole remedy against the employer and the carrier. We agree with Sullivan that the legislature may not have set out the carrier's co-immunity with the employer in a single specific section of the present workmen's compensation law. For instance, on its face, Section 440.11(2) appears to apply only to "safety services" provided by the carrier. However, when Section 440.11 and the rest of the provisions of the compensation law are examined as a whole we find numerous expressions of intent by the legislature to apply the same liabilities and immunities to the carrier as are applied to the employer....
...described in this complaint, should generate swift relief in the commission. The courts support the commission in affording it. Sullivan also contends that he sufficiently alleged a cause of action against the insurer for intentionally harming him. Section 440.11(2) provides exceptions to the immunity granted in the case of certain willful assaults and automobile accidents....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1698, 1992 WL 25072
...aul, the injuries were covered by workers' compensation. However, since neither Paul nor the Defendants maintained workers' compensation coverage as required by law, the exclusive remedy provisions of the Florida Workers' Compensation Act, Fla.Stat. § 440.11, are inapplicable....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1966 Fla. LEXIS 3884
...On appeal, the District Court affirmed, saying: "Smith received workmen's compensation from his employer Crandon for the injuries sustained in the accident. The controlling question on this appeal is whether or not the immunity from liability which is granted to an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, § 440.11, Fla....
...driver was injured by the truck. We find no reason that the principle therein expressed should not be applied in this case." Despite the excellent argument of the petitioner, we find we must disallow it. Petitioner urges that the provisions of F.S. Section 440.11, F.S.A....
...his employer for personal injuries resulting from the negligent act of the employer or of a fellow servant occurring in the scope of the employment. Thus, petitioner could not sue his employer in this case because of the statutory release. See F.S. Section 440.11, F.S.A....
...Except where modified by statute, when either a master or a servant being joint tort feasors is released by an injured party, the other tort feasor cannot be sued. See 35 Am.Jur. 963, Master and Servant, paragraph 535. Analogously to this principle, since F.S. Section 440.11, F.S.A., represents an exception to F.S. Section 54.28, F.S.A., the general statute precluding absolvement of liability of a joint tort feasor by release, and since petitioner had, pursuant to Section 440.11, released his employer from suit, petitioner could not sue the owner of the motorcycle as the lessor, since lessor stood with respect to the lessee in any negligence action arising from such relationship as a joint tort feasor....
...The courts below must have taken into account that when an employer accepts the Workmen's Compensation Act and provides for the payment of benefits thereunder, he becomes immune from suit by his employee for personal injury sustained by the employee in the scope of his employment (F.S. Section 440.11, F.S.A.); but if the employer had rejected the act, he could not defend such a suit on the ground the injury to his employee was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2008 WL 4346438
...440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer ... except as follows: (a) If an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter.... (b) When an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee. § 440.11(1)(a)-(b), Fla....
...Additionally, the 2001 amendment that added section
440.20(11)(c) did not create an additional exception of any type. We conclude that if the Legislature had intended for section
440.20(11)(c) to constitute an explicit exception, it would have been explicit and most probably included under section
440.11, with the other exceptions....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1877558
...ity is created, the resolution of which is a question of fact requiring the JCC to determine the intended scope of the settlement. See Barefoot v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
650 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The JCC erred by concluding the amendments to section
440.11(c), Florida Statutes, divested her of the subject matter jurisdiction long held by JCCs to determine whether the parties entered a binding settlement agreement, or to enter an order giving effect to that agreement....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ame construction job. 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....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2655
...1949,
41 So.2d 308; Rosenfield v. Matthews, 201 Minn. 113, 275 N.W. 698; Griffith v. Raven Red Ash Coal Co., 179 Va. 790, 20 S.E.2d 530. [3] Larson's Workman's Compensation Law, Sec. 65.10; Hammett v. Vogue, Inc., 179 Tenn. 284, 165 S.W.2d 577. [4] F.S. §
440.11, F.S.A....
...1954,
75 So.2d 758; Rosier v. Roofing & Sheet Metal Supply Co., see note 2. [9] Allen v. Maxwell Co.,
152 Fla. 340,
11 So.2d 572. [10] F.S. §
440.13, F.S.A. [11] F.S. § 44.03, F.S.A. [12] Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree, Fla. 1954,
73 So.2d 287. [13] F.S. §
440.11, F.S.A....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...The district court concluded: In Mandico, the court receded from Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree,
73 So.2d 287 (Fla.1954), in which it had held that prohibition was the appropriate remedy to test the jurisdiction of a circuit court in the context of the exclusive remedy established by section
440.11....
...lished law that workers' compensation immunity is an affirmative defense to a traditional tort action. See Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condominium, Inc.,
378 So.2d 774, 781 (Fla.1979). Indeed, by continually reenacting the immunity provisions of section
440.11 without abrogating this legal principle, the legislature is presumed to have adopted it as part *980 of the statute....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 738386
...VAUSE, R.N., were operating in the furtherance of the business of BAY MEDICAL CENTER, but were assigned primarily to unrelated works to that of JOYCE L. VAUSE, R.N. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including sovereign immunity and the employer's tort immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes, as well as the plaintiff's election of a workers' compensation remedy....
...act of its employees, notwithstanding the broad immunity from suit granted to employers and coemployees of workers who are injured on the job and who are entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Although in Holmes, the court recognizes that under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, a public employer *262 could be liable if an injury occurred as a result of the negligence of a coemployee "assigned primarily to unrelated works," appellant cites no case nor law which would support his position...
...in another department providing health care, is engaged in work unrelated to that of the hospital supervisor, the departmental supervisor, or the operator of the machine which is utilized to provide care for the patient whom the nurse is attending. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), in pertinent part states, The liability of an employer ......
...lic employment. The appellant relies heavily on the case of Holmes County, supra, in arguing that he is entitled to sue BMC and that his complaint sufficiently alleges that the decedent and the defendants were involved in unrelated works pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
...ecessary assistance to the patient"). The fact that the decedent was assigned to a different department or that she was using a specialized piece of medical equipment should not serve to undermine the broad workers' compensation immunity provided in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
...The trial court, therefore, could have correctly dismissed the complaint against BMC because the court could have found that the employees were not engaged in unrelated works. We next address those counts brought directly against nurse Vause's coemployees. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), extends immunity to fellow employees, but states that "[s]uch fellow-employee immunity shall not be applicable to an employee who acts ......
...and conclusions reached by the majority *265 with respect to the medical negligence claim against Dr. Stringer and the claim against Bay Medical Center based on the so-called "unrelated works" exception to workers' compensation immunity contained in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
...In Frantz, the Supreme Court stated that in the absence of a legislative mandate to the contrary, fellow employees were to be treated as third-party tort-feasors within the context of the workers' compensation law. In 1978, the legislature amended section 440.11(1) [6] which amendment had the effect of protecting co-employees from liability for acts of simple negligence....
...*267 For purposes of this analysis, I think it important to discuss first, without examining the effect of the two exceptions to the broad grant of immunity, just what was accomplished by extending the same immunity to fellow employees that had previously been accorded to employers. Before the amendment to section 440.11(1) was added, a worker injured by a co-employee had the right to institute a common law action for damages against the negligent coemployee in addition to his workers' compensation remedy against his employer....
...vision of healthcare to a patient.... The fact that the decedent was assigned to a different department or that she was using a specialized piece of medical equipment should not serve to undermine the broad workers' compensation immunity provided in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes." In analyzing this language, one could, as does the majority, conclude that because Nurse Vause was engaged in the provision of healthcare to a patient, she was thereby acting in furtherance of her employer's busi...
...of her co-workers. This conclusion, in my judgment, is at odds with the express language of the statute which clearly contemplates that fellow employees may be operating in furtherance of the employer's business at the time of the injury; therefore, section 440.11(1) immunity is inapplicable if these employees are assigned temporary work unrelated to their primary assignment....
...uld ever apply. From a procedural perspective, one of the most instructive cases relating to the issue of unrelated works is Lake v. Ramsay,
566 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), which involved the question of whether the exclusive remedy provisions of section
440.11(1) barred the action of an injured maintenance employee for damages resulting from the defendant's alleged negligence in the construction of a ceiling of a condominium garage....
...As noted in Larson Workers' Compensation, § 72.21 (Supp.1995), the Florida unrelated works exception is "unique." [3] We would note that the administrator, Taylor, acting as a corporate officer may be entitled to immunity from suit in that capacity. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides in pertinent part: "The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any sole proprietor, partner, corporate officer or director, supervisor, or other person who in the cours...
...for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed exceeds 60 days imprisonment as set forth in s.
775.082." [4] At the time of the accident that resulted in Nurse Vause's death, defendant, John Taylor, was Bay Medical Center's administrator. Since section
440.11(1) provides that a supervisor acting in a managerial or policy making capacity is clothed with the same immunity enjoyed by his employer, Mr....
...igence. It is conduct "showing reckless disregard for human life" or the type of indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of those rights. (Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases, p. 89) That portion of section 440.11(1) which affords immunity from common-law tort liability to supervisory employees such as Mr....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 147271
...Keffer from suing her employer and supervisor in tort for the work-related injury. We agree. On review of an order denying a motion for summary judgment, an appellate court must view every possible inference in favor of a party against whom summary judgment is sought. Moore v. Morris,
475 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1985). Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1993) limits liability on the part of employers and supervisors for work-related injuries to employees to workers' compensation entitlements....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...d 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." Further, section
440.11, 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....
...1954,
72 So.2d 285, where the common law action was by the employee of one independent contractor against the owner of the project for negligence of an employee of a separate independent contractor. The Court held that since there was no "common employer" section
440.11, supra, did not apply....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1985 WL 661617
...Examining the exclusive remedy features of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, we find that Florida Steel is immune from suit only to the extent that it was required to carry workers' compensation insurance covering Crawford, or see that it was carried. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...as been sued for damages by the injured employee, where it is alleged in the claim for indemnity that the employer's active negligence was primarily responsible for the injury, but the employer has invoked the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act (§ 440.11, Florida Statutes Annotated 1966)....
..., the "Manufacturer"; the appellant, Trail Builders Supply Company, a Florida Corporation, the "Employer". The Employer in its able argument and brief primarily relies upon the exclusiveness of the employee's remedy against his employer, [1] citing, § 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., [2] and arguing that since an employer, by compliance with the Act, agrees to endure absolute vicarious liability up to the limits of the Act, for injury or death to an employee, he is guaranteed that he will not...
...would not have had but for the Act. Did it additionally bind the third party tortfeasor by granting immunity to the employer, thus resulting in a windfall to the latter to the detriment of the former? We fail to find such intent or language in F.S. § 440.11, F.S.A....
...tive negligence was primarily responsible for the injury. 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...
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1954 Fla. LEXIS 1527
...fining employees: "* * * every person engaged in an employment under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, 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, hu...
...mendment to Child Labor Laws. He was therefore "unlawfully employed." If injured, can such a minor sue at law for personal injury or is he limited to Workmen's Compensation Act to seek recovery? An examination of Section
440.02(2) defining employee, Section
440.11 limiting liability of the employer, and Section
440.54 providing additional compensation to minors employed in violation of the Child Labor Law, forces the conclusion that the minor is limited to his remedy under Workmen's Compensation. Section
440.11 says so in no uncertain terms and the language of Section
440.54 amply fortifies this conclusion....
...loyee. Such statutory contract arises not by consent or agreement of the parties but comes into being whether consent to be employed or to employ can legally be given under the Child Labor Laws. We cannot in the teeth of the express language of F.S. § 440.11, F.S.A., hold that an unlawfully employed minor is entitled to bring a suit at common law and also hold that an unlawfully employed minor is entitled to the protection of the Workmen's Compensation Act....
...Viscoloid Co., supra; See 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, 514-521. Little need is there for us to comment upon the power of the legislature to abolish the remedies under common law where no violation of constitutional rights are involved. F.S. § 440.11, F.S.A., is so clear in its application to the facts of the instant case that further amplification in this regard is unnecessary....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...ted the crane from Gold Coast, together with this crane operator and helper. The crane was owned by Rew. At the time of the accident, the general contractor was covered by workmen's compensation insurance. Defendants asserted as a defense Fla. Stat. § 440.11, F.S.A., as exclusive remedy....
...The decision as so amended, is approved, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Inasmuch as the decision of the district court is limited solely to the procedural issue discussed above, we do not reach the question of whether Fla. Stat. § 440.11, F.S.A., provides defendants, or either of them, with immunity from liability due to the exclusive remedy of that statute....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24924, 2003 WL 23355662
...In such a situation, any negligence associated with the operation of the dangerous instrumentality is attributable to the employer; it is responsible for its own workplace tools. See id. at 1348. As a consequence, "the exclusivity principle of worker's compensation comes to bear." See id. at 1347 (citing Fla. Stat. § 440.11)....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17171
...Fellows, supra ; Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. B & P Restaurant Corp.,
271 So.2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Maybarduk v. Bustamante,
294 So.2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Florida Power Corporation v. Taylor,
332 So.2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Thus, as long as the provisions of Section
440.11(1) do not bar his claim, appellant could state a cause of action in indemnity if the disputed facts were viewed most favorably toward him....
...In Sunspan Engineering & Construction Company v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Company,
310 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1975), the supreme court held that a third party action against an employer whose injured employee had received Workman's Compensation benefits is not barred by the provisions of Section
440.11(1)....
...We affirm the summary judgment as to contribution, but reverse as to indemnity and the right to amend third party plaintiff's complaint. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinions expressed herein. NOTES [1] §
768.31, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1976). [2] §
440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1976). [3] We have not failed to consider appellant's argument that a recent decision of the Fourth District supports his position that contribution should be allowed despite the immunity provided by §
440.11(1)....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5420
...on Law. In their appellate brief the appellants phrase this question more restrictedly, as follows: "Does refusal to pay voluntarily workmen's compensation benefits estop a statutory employer from raising the exclusiveness of liability provisions of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes?" The appellee in his brief, however, correctly points out that, as we shall discuss later, many other circumstances are shown in the record that establish the fact of such estoppel, in *839 addition to "refusal to pay voluntarily workmen's compensation benefits....
...Poulsen's property. The defendants' position as stated in their defenses and on this appeal that this action against 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,...
...d by the defendants, we are of the opinion that the proofs at the trial are sufficient to support the jury verdict against the defendants, unless we should hold that as a matter of law the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the application of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 149, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 302
...In Re: Standard Jury Instructions In Civil CasesReport No. 09-07 (Intentional Tort Exception to Exclusive Remedy of Workers' Compensation), No. SC09-303 Instruction 414.5 is new, and addresses the "intentional tort exception" in workers' compensation cases. See § 440.11(1)(b), Fla....
...) from exercising an informed judgment; and, if so, whether that conduct was a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] to (claimant). NOTE ON USE FOR 414.5 This instruction applies to causes of action accruing on or after October 1, 2003. See F.S. 440.11 (2003) (codifying intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity and modifying standard announced in Turner v....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...resolving the jurisdictional issue posed in this case. The Workers' Compensation Act provides that an employer's liability for compensation to an employee pursuant to the act "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer." § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1994). In the context of a civil tort action filed by an employee against an employer, however, it has long been the law of Florida that the exclusive remedy afforded by section 440.11 is an affirmative defense....
...In Mandico, the court receded from Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree,
73 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1954), in which it had held that prohibition was the appropriate remedy to test the jurisdiction of a circuit court in the context of the exclusive remedy established by section
440.11....
...ished law that workers' compensation immunity is an affirmative defense to a traditional tort action. See Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condominium, Inc.,
378 So.2d 774, 781 (Fla. 1979). Indeed, by continually reenacting the immunity provisions of section
440.11 without abrogating this legal principle, the legislature is presumed to have adopted it as part of the statute....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 404, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 960, 1990 WL 107463
...er's compensation statutes. The central rationale of Smith is that leased equipment used on a job site in effect has become the working tool of the employer. [1] Id. at 424. Thus, the exclusivity principle of worker's compensation comes to bear. See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...On the basis of those cases, the trial judge granted summary judgment for Hertz Corporation and against Iglesia's personal representative. In seeking to recover against Floran, Iglesia argued to the trial court the unconstitutionality of a 1978 amendment to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....
...With respect to Floran, the trial judge was also correct. In Kluger v. White,
281 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973), we held that the legislature may not abolish a common law right for which no reasonable alternative is provided, unless an overpowering public necessity to do so exists. Before the 1978 amendment to section
440.11, an employee had the right to bring a lawsuit against a co-employee for death or injuries negligently inflicted....
...334,
5 So.2d 867 (1942), this Court approved the so-called "Guest Statute" which merely changed the degree of negligence necessary for a passenger in an automobile to maintain a tort action against the driver. It did not abolish the right to sue, and does not come under the rule which we have promulgated.
281 So.2d at 4. Section
440.11 still provides a cause of action for gross negligence just as the court-sustained "guest statute" did....
...The Florida legislature has broad powers in enacting legislation. The acts that it passes are to be sustained unless they run afoul of a limitation placed upon them by the Florida Constitution or violate a provision of the United States Constitution. Contrary to the contention of Iglesia, section 440.11 does not violate the access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution and should be upheld....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1384
...85-2139 was severed from the consolidated appeals, but will be treated herein at the conclusion of our discussion of the consolidated appeals. [3] ADH was not a party to this litigation by virtue of its immunity from suit under the Workmen's Compensation Statute, Section 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 425056
...lty of failing to exercise reasonable care in its supervision of Hastings in his capacity as the overseer of the company's operations. In his motion for summary judgment, Hastings asserted that he was entitled to workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991), in that the facts did not support a finding that he was guilty of culpable negligence as alleged....
...Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
367 So.2d 658, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA) (under workers' compensation law an employer, while obligated to compensate employee for certain injuries regardless of fault, is immune from tort liability), cert. denied,
378 So.2d 350 (Fla. 1979); §
440.11....
...a proposed amendment to the rule in accord with its opinion. To date, no such amendment has been adopted. [3] See also Eiler v. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
542 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (it is well settled that the exclusivity provision of section
440.11 is an affirmative defense which cannot be raised by a motion to dismiss unless the allegations of a prior pleading demonstrate the existence of such defense)....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 147, 2009 WL 217974
...d to testify for Saleeby. After hearing all of the evidence at trial, the jury found that Saleeby was not entitled to recover damages from Elson because the company was immune from liability in tort under Florida's workers' compensation statute. See § 440.11(1), Fla....
...Accordingly, Saleeby is entitled to prevail on appeal only if a substantial right of Saleeby has been adversely affected and a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Saleeby's case turned on whether Elson was immune from tort liability as an employer pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1999)....
...from settlement agreements has no application in the instant case. [6] Saleeby was injured in 1999. The Legislature later codified a statutory intentional tort exception that established a virtual certainty standard that does not apply here. See § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 49127
...As a result, the party hiring such an independent contractor is not required to obtain workers' compensation coverage for the independent contractor and is not entitled to the immunity from civil suit for work-related injuries suffered by the independent contractor. § 440.11, Fla....
...viable theories upon which recovery may be had. That is not the case with respect to an injured employee. When injury is suffered in the course and scope of employment, workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for recovery against the employer. § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 33658
...ce would be sufficient to deny appellants workers' compensation immunity. Accepting the facts as described in the trial court's order, we conclude that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the law. [1] Appellants claim immunity pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991). Section 440.11(1) grants employers and employees engaged in managerial or policy making decisions immunity from tort actions by employees....
...t response from violent individuals residing in areas where Johnston knew that arguments were regularly settled through a resort to violence and gunfire. Appellants moved for summary judgment on the ground that they were immune from suit pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 421, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 1322, 2004 WL 1846219
...as to the immunity of fellow employees for cases involving "employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. " § 440.11(1), Fla....
...they are all charged to carry out the mission of the employer. At the same time, however, some distinction could always be drawn between the work of most employees so as to make their work unrelated. Because the unrelated works exception set out in section 440.11(1) represents an exception to the broad exclusive remedy provisions of the Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, we conclude that under the ordinary rules of statutory construction we must interpret it narrowly....
...ative history. The majority here rejects the Second District's decision in Lopez, with which I disagree, but it then fails to adopt any parameters to provide assistance to the lower courts in the application of the unrelated works exception found in section 440.11(1) of the Florida Statutes....
...I concur only in the result of the majority opinion, as I believe Lopez was correctly decided and that we should formulate parameters as guidance for the lower courts to follow when presented with the unrelated works exception issue. Today we must analyze section 440.11(1), which provides: The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive *7 benefits under this chapter....
...h injury or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...a statutory right to accept workers' compensation benefits and at the same time pursue a civil action against a negligent co-employee who is assigned primarily to unrelated works."). The injured employee is granted the right to sue a co-employee by section
440.11(1), but is not permitted to prosecute an action against the negligent co-employee because of section
768.28(9)(a)....
...at 1178-79. A survey of the decisions of the district courts of appeal that have attempted to give this provision life demonstrate the challenges that our courts have experienced in attempting to apply this exception. In 1978, the Legislature amended section 440.11(1) and added the co-employee immunity provisions, including the "unrelated works" exception to such immunity....
...in search of the proper formula for administration of this exception to the workers' compensation statutory scheme without any uniformity whatsoever. Therefore, I concur only in the result reached by the majority. PARIENTE, C.J., concurs. NOTES [1] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, entitled "Exclusiveness of liability," provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties and was not a violation of a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days' imprisonment as set forth in s.
775.082. §
440.11(1), Fla....
...See Turner,
732 So.2d at 344. The First District did not discuss that the unrelated works exception to workers' compensation immunity applies strictly to co-employees and does not impact a private employer's immunity established pursuant to the general provisions of section
440.11(1)....
...exception, but the relevant issue in those cases was not whether the co-employees were engaged in unrelated works. In Holmes County School Board v. Duffell,
651 So.2d 1176 (Fla.1995), this Court held that the employer's immunity, granted pursuant to section
440.11(1), did not preclude an action by an employee against his public employer pursuant to section
768.28(9)(a) of the Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13202, 2003 WL 22047378
...as to raise the potentially conclusive defense of workers' compensation immunity. I. Because (a) the plaintiff received comp benefits for his injuries as an employee of the Employer's Services Contract, Inc., a "help-supply services company," under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2002), which also employed the person who improperly operated the crane, see Fleming Companies, Inc....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ch recovery may be had. That is not the case here. Where an injury is suffered in the course and scope of employment, the Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (1983), is the exclusive remedy for recovery against the employer. See § 440.11....
...In Williams, the employee at all times conceded that the injury occurred in the course of employment. Further, the *1390 holding in that case was that where the employee first filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer, and such claim was dismissed as untimely, no election was made under Section 440.11 since the election was not "efficacious to some extent." Id....
...udgment as a matter of law, based upon its finding that the plaintiff's knowingly acceptance of workers' compensation benefits precludes this claim ..." I would agree. Williams v. Duggan,
153 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1963); 1 Fla.Jur.2d Actions, Section 148; Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981); 25 Am.Jur.2d, Elections of Remedies, Section 21.
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5603, 1997 WL 268489
...[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)....
...unity 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....
...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 440.11(1) provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...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....
...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 partyeither express or implied in fact....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2005 WL 1403993
...r be sufficiently alleged because they touched upon the claim process. See id. at 468. The court concluded, therefore, that because Aguilera's allegations were insufficient to establish any exception to the doctrine of statutory immunity provided by section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes (2000), the trial court had erred in its determination that the cause of action was not barred by the Workers' Compensation Law....
...d, *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 ... to the employee...." With regard to the liability of a worker's compensation insurance carrier, section
440.11(4) provided that "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of s[ection]
624.155, the liability of a carrier to an employee or to anyone entitled to bring suit in the name of the employee shall be as provided in this chapter, which shall be exc...
...mon-law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike." §
440.015 Fla. Stat. (2000). As the majority states, Florida's workers' compensation immunity protects an employer from most work-related tort lawsuits, but the exclusivity provision of section
440.11 does not insulate an employer from intentional tort lawsuits brought by employees....
...r has not engaged in any intentional act designed to result in or that is substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee." Eller v. Shova,
630 So.2d 537, 539 (Fla.1993). Workers' compensation carriers enjoy the same immunity. See §
440.11(4), Fla....
...In this case, there is no express and direct conflict between Aguilera and Sibley because the cases concern two different questions of law. In Aguilera, the Third District expressly held that "the allegations in the present case are insufficient to come within any exception to the statutory immunity provided by section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2000)." Id....
...Relying upon section 440.37(2)(c), Adjustco sought to have those claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. [10] The trial court granted Adjustco's motion; however, instead of relying upon section 440.37, the trial court based its ruling on section 440.11. The Second District affirmed the trial court; but it reached its decision without any reliance upon section 440.11. Specifically, the Second District stated that "[t]he focus of Adjustco's contentions ... was the effect of section 440.37 and its subparts upon *107 Sibley's claims. The final judgment, however, is predicated on section 440.11 .... We do not rest our affirmance upon section 440.11." Sibley v....
...der, dissect nor analyze the decisions dealing with `bad faith' and resultant penalties in the handling of the claim." Id. In quashing the Second District's decision, this Court acknowledged that the Second District "did not rest its affirmance upon section
440.11." Sibley,
596 So.2d at 1050. Likewise, in answering the question as certified, this Court did not rest its decision on section
440.11 (or any other provision of chapter 440, except section 440.37). Indeed, section
440.11 is completely absent from the question of law in Sibley....
...nviction as a condition precedent to the maintenance of a tort action by an employee who claims to have been defrauded, are the exclusive remedy or an alternative cause of action. Sibley,
596 So.2d at 1050. Without any reliance upon or discussion of section
440.11 whatsoever (much less any relationship between section
440.11 and section 440.37), this Court specifically held that "section 440.37 provides only an alternative cause of action rather than the exclusive cause of action under these circumstances." Id. at 1050. Alternatively stated, the question of immunity under section
440.11 or otherwise was never before this Court in Sibley. The issue in Sibley was not whether section
440.11 gave the carrier immunity from suit....
...expressly and directly address the narrow question of law answered in Sibley. As stated earlier, the express holding in Aguilera is that the employee's allegations "are insufficient to come within any exception to the statutory immunity provided by section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2000)." Id....
...Sibley expressly limited itself to addressing the narrow question of exclusivity relative solely to section 440.37, a statutory provision long since repealed, and the unique statutory cause of action section 440.37 provided to claimants. Sibley never discusses a statutory basis within chapter 440 for exclusivity such as section 440.11. On the other hand, the opinion in Aguilera never discusses section 440.37 or the exclusivity of its unique statutory cause of action. Instead, Aguilera addresses the broader question of exclusivity that arises from section 440.11, the general exclusivity section of chapter 440, and how that section's express grant of immunity applies to a specific, independent tort not relevant in Sibley....
...his employer's compensation carrier. [n. 4] See Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Whitworth,
442 So.2d at 1079. [N. 4] Aguilera's argument that a carrier does not have immunity for acts which occur after a workplace injury, contradicts the obvious intent of section
440.11(4), Florida Statutes (2000), as well as common sense. Section
440.11(4) extends immunity from liability to the employer's workers' compensation carrier....
...This is simply not a common sense construction and would contradict the intent of the statute, as well as encourage a multiplicity of collateral lawsuits. In conclusion, we find the allegations in the present case are insufficient to come within any exception to the statutory immunity provided by section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2000)....
...See Talat Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,
753 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla.2000). While Florida does recognize a statutory bad faith cause of action, see §
624.155, Fla. Stat. (2000), such cause is inapplicable to insurance carriers in workers' compensation cases. See §
440.11(4), Fla....
...[7] Additionally, on the question of carrier immunity from such claims, I agree with the court below when it stated: Aguilera's argument that a carrier does not have immunity for acts which occur after a workplace injury, contradicts the obvious intent of section 440.11(4), Florida Statutes (2000), as well as common sense. Section 440.11(4) extends immunity from liability to the employer's workers' compensation carrier....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 22262
...Audrey and Donald Byerley ("Byerley") appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of Citrus Publishing, Inc. ("employer") in their action for negligence and loss of consortium. The trial court ruled that Byerley's injury was exclusively covered by the Florida's Workers' Compensation Act, section 440.11(1995), Florida Statutes, and thus an independent tort action was barred....
...The notice of denial stated: "Injury did not arise out [of] the course and scope of [Byerley's] employment. Employee was clocked out and had exited the building, when she tripped over a bench on the pavement." After the denial, and pursuant to sections
440.06 and
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995), Byerley filed a tort action. The employer asserted in its answer, among other things, that Byerley's exclusive remedy was workers' compensation. See
440.11, Fla....
...ation Act. The employer argues that it cannot be estopped from claiming workers' compensation immunity because the denial of benefits was issued by its workers' compensation carrier, and thus, is not attributable to the employer. Sections
440.06 and
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, allowed Byerley to file a civil suit if the employer did not secure payments for job related injuries....
...employer had determined the injury was not covered precluded summary judgment. Id. at 394. An employee who has been denied compensation for an injury may either file an administrative petition challenging the denial or sue the employer for damages. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...ing these tort suits on the ground that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow employee, that the employee assumed the risk of the employment, or that the injury resulted from the comparative negligence of the employee. See §§
440.06,
440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 525241
...tions to dismiss. NOTES [1] Rule 9.130(a)(3)(c)(vi) provides that: [r]eview of non-final orders of lower tribunals is limited to those that ... determine ... that, as a matter of law, a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity ... [2] Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995) provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...with State Farm which refused to acknowledge liability upon a claim being filed against it by Loretta Wallace. The winch truck was self-insured by FPL pursuant to §
324.171, *817 Fla. Stat.; nevertheless, FPL was immune from liability by virtue of §
440.11, Fla....
...She contended that she was entitled to the uninsured motorist coverage because although the winch truck was self-insured by FPL, the insurance was not available because her deceased husband was an employee of FPL and could not maintain an action against his employer in tort (pursuant to § 440.11, Fla....
...t the winch truck was self-insured by FPL. Thus, the truck is not an uninsured vehicle under the terms of appellant's policy. We must also reject appellee's argument that because FPL is immune from liability by virtue of workmen's compensation laws (§ 440.11), the winch truck is an uninsured vehicle....
...*818 In light of our disposition of this point, it is apparent the orders awarding appellee attorney's fees are erroneous. 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...
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 52798
...t and the testimony of the Claimant gives rise to direct signs of control over the Claimant as to assigning floor time hours and other rules and regulations, giving rise to an additional $621 per week. * * * * * * 13. I have reviewed Florida Statute 440.11(d)(1)(a) as pointed to by the Employer/Carrier and I find specifically that under the factual situation in this case that the Claimant was supervised by the words of the contract and that the remuneration was not solely by commission, but also by the items provided to her in her contract of employment....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2007 WL 1174893
... arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment.” Fla.
Stat. Ann. §
440.09 (2001).3 As a general matter, the workers’ compensation
liability of an employer “shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of
such employer . . . .” Id. §
440.11....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 776
...It is those same breaches which are the basis for the within suit against the President (and Chairman of the Board) as well as the Senior Vice-President of the employer. The lower Court granted a Summary Judgment to the individual officers and this appeal resulted. The point on appeal is whether Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983) provides similar immunity to the appellee-officers as it did for the employer....
...es indeed strike twice or thrice. As stated by Judge Gunther, in her wellreasoned opinion upholding the second amended complaint: "In order to state a cause of action for gross negligence against defendant, Streeter, as permitted by the exception to Section 440.11 Florida Statutes, the Second Amended Complaint ......
...Shenandoah General Construction Co.
472 So.2d 871, 873 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1985) [2] . Since it is obviously an issue of great public importance which will affect more and more cases, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question: DOES SECTION
440.11(1), FLORIDA STATUTES (1983) PERMIT SUITS AGAINST CORPORATE EMPLOYER OFFICERS, EXECUTIVES AND SUPERVISORS AS "EMPLOYEES" FOR ACTS OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO PROVIDE A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE IN WHICH OTHER EMPLOYEES MAY WORK? FOR THE ABOVE REASONS THE MATTER IS REVERSED AND REMANDED....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 106761
...s, Gainey, Adams, and Bell, as defendants. On July 14, 1987, the individual defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, on the ground that their conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence required for liability under the provisions of section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
...Following the hearing on the employees' motion for summary judgment, the trial court entered an order finding that the circumstances of the case did not rise to the level of gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct that would remove the co-employees from the section 440.11(1) immunity from liability. Thereafter, final judgment was entered in favor of the employees. Resolution of this case turns upon whether the conduct of Courtney's fellow employees can be determined to constitute gross negligence. The applicable statute, section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1985), states in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...Streeter,
485 So.2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), approved,
509 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1987), the rule was applied in the workers' compensation context. There, the court said: In order to state a cause of action for gross negligence ..., as permitted by the exception to Section
440.11, Florida Statutes, the ......
...oceedings consistent with this opinion. SHIVERS, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur. NOTES [1] The exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act immunize an employer from any other liability to an employee injured in the course of his employment. § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 583707
...In response, Marriott answered that Sagarino was either an employee of Marriott, a statutory employee, or its "borrowed employee." Marriott alleged that consistent with the existence of any of these relationships, it is immune from a civil suit based upon the immunity afforded by sections
440.10 and
440.11, Florida Statutes (1993)....
...Indeed, pursuant to the parties' contract, FLT, not Marriott, provided Sagarino with these benefits. Therefore, under Hogan and Jones, Marriott's contention that it is immune from Sagarino's negligence suit as a statutory employer is without merit. Lastly, Marriott alleges that Sagarino was a "borrowed employee" pursuant to section 440.11(2), Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 86537
...The City of Lake Mary (City) appeals the trial court's order denying its motion for summary judgment, and alternatively the City seeks review of the trial court's order denying its requested jury instruction on the issue of workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990)....
...After the workers' compensation settlement order was entered, Franklin sued the City for negligence. The City filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it was entitled to judgment in its favor on the basis of immunity because workers' compensation was Franklin's exclusive remedy pursuant to section 440.11....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11224
...cle involved is covered by an unresponsive or unenforceable insurance policy. II. IS BOYNTON "LEGALLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER" DAMAGES FROM LUKE, AS THE OPERATOR OF THE VEHICLE WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY? Luke and Boynton were fellow employees at Sears, so section 440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp....
...I cannot conclude this is correct for two reasons. First, "legally entitled" means something more than simply "entitled." In the instant case, Boynton was perhaps "entitled" to recover but he was not "lawfully or legally" entitled to recover because he was barred by law from recovery. See § 440.11, Fla....
...Every automobile left with a garage for repairs is uninsured as to employees injured by its negligent operation. While this risk may not be as great as I envision it, it is certainly not a risk contemplated by the carrier in establishing its rates. I would affirm. NOTES [1] Section 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 5426
...dvisory services relating to the safety of employees. The suit is based on the negligent performance of appellee's duties in the premises; but appellee contends that it is entitled to the same immunity as the "employer" given under the provisions of § 440.11, F.S....
...1969, F.S.A. (e.g., by inspecting and advising as to the safety of employees), should be immune from suit as a third party tort-feasor, by an employee covered under the workmen's compensation program, as is an "employer" within the contemplation of § 440.11, supra....
...Corporate Group Service, Inc. [4] That case is inapplicable here, however, because that court expressly did not decide whether a service company, such as the appellee here occupies the position of an insurer who in turn would stand in the shoes of an "employer" under § 440.11, supra....
...890, aff'd, (1st Cir.1967)
387 F.2d 631; Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Co., (D.Md. 1965)
248 F. Supp. 588, aff'd (4th Cir.1966)
363 F.2d 442. [2] Indeed, the legislature has now expressed concurrence with such rationale, as a policy, by its amendment to §
440.11, F.S....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 385452
...g a vacuum cleaner owned by the association. She and her husband brought this action against the association (and others). The trial court held the association was Mrs. Wood's statutory employer and therefore immune from civil liability by virtue of section 440.11 Florida Statutes....
...t under section
718.3025, Florida Statutes (1991) for operation, maintenance or management of the condominium. The summary judgment for appellee-condominium association finding it to be the *1305 statutory employer of appellant and thus immune under section
440.11 from civil action, is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent hereof....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 338, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16725
...ZEHMER, Judge. Cheryl Sue Aloff, plaintiff in this personal injury action, appeals a summary judgment entered for her employer, Neff-Harmon, Inc., on the grounds that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy lies under the workers' compensation law pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1977)....
...n time to prevent the assault and rape of plaintiff, which occurred some twenty to thirty minutes after the intruders first entered. The trial court granted Neff-Harmon's motion for summary judgment on the sole ground that the immunity provisions of section 440.11 limited plaintiff's remedy exclusively to benefits under the workers' compensation law....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Subsequently, she filed this negligence action against Jessop alleging that he was a co-employee, and thereby subject to a third party action for damages. The court granted Jessop a summary judgment holding that he was immune from suit as West's employer under Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1973)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...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. Stat. (1975); [1] §
440.11, Fla....
...oyees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment. 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....
...nprovoked physical aggression, or by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, by employees, officers, or directors of the employer's workmen's compensation carrier, service agent, or safety consultant. [3] Chapter 78-300, Laws of Florida, amended section 440.11 to grant co-workers statutory immunity for ordinary negligence....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 50 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 458, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1129, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13817
...Vicki Brown and her husband appeal from the trial court's order granting Winn-Dixie's motion for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that the Browns' tort claims [1] against Winn-Dixie are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Florida Workers' Compensation Act, Section 440.11(1), *157 Florida Statutes (1979)....
...hich the employer is obligated to furnish medical or other benefits. The fact that in a particular case the injury suffered does not in fact result in a loss of diminution or earning capacity is immaterial. (e.s.) She was, therefore, precluded under Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979), from pursuing her common law remedies except as to the defendant Blaich. [4] [T]he concept of exclusiveness of remedy embodied in Fla. Stat. § 440.11, F.S.A....
...Regardless of what label we place on the tort, the fact is that the act which appellants claim directly caused the mental distress for which damages are sought is the act of grabbing Mrs. Brown's breast. Appellants' tort claims based thereon are barred by Section 440.11....
...'s coverage. After a careful reading of the statutes involved, I am convinced that the type of harm inflicted upon appellant 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....
...27 June 1983. I join the present dissent by Judge L.G. Smith. NOTES [1] Mr. 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....
...ental distress or injury directly resulting from such impermissible touching. [4] Although we have no occasion to determine whether Blaich would be entitled to assert workers compensation exclusivity, it would appear that the following provisions of Section 440.11(1) would preclude such assertion....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 75549
...The Elliotts appeal a final summary judgment entered in favor of Dugger. The trial court ruled that their claims for Robert Elliott's work-related injuries based upon simple negligence, intentional tort, and the gross negligence of a coemployee, were either barred by section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1985), which provides that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for workplace injury, or the sovereign immunity provisions of section
768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1985)....
...related to the accident. Thus the claim for further medical care in the nature of psychiatric or psychological counseling must be denied at this time. Dugger again filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that this civil suit is barred under section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
...that Dugger could not be sued, as the department head, for the gross negligence of coemployee, Harry C. Winslow, because the sovereign immunity provisions of section
768.28(9)(a), prohibited suit against Winslow. We find this analysis to be correct. Section
440.11 provides that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for work-related injury or death. The immunity from liability enjoyed by the employer is extended to coemployees, except when the coemployee acts "with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence resulting in injury or death... ." Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
...vereign immunity to coemployees who work for the state or any of its subdivisions, unless the employee acts with bad faith, malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property. Thus, although section
440.11 permits suit against a coemployee who acts with gross negligence, section
768.28(9)(a) grants immunity to a state coemployee who merely acts with gross negligence and not the greater degree of culpability set forth in the statute....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1995 WL 273934
...We confirm that an owner must be a contractor or statutory employer within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act and thus liable for securing workers' compensation benefits in order to be entitled to workers' compensation immunity pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1989)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Upon these facts the trial court determined that at the time of the occurrence of the accident the plaintiff was a "special employee of the defendant Shell." As such "special employee" of Shell he was foreclosed from bringing this action for damages under the provisions of F.S. Section 440.11, F.S.A....
...fidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The question of law is quite clear. If Shell was the "employer" of Hamilton at the time of his injury, then Hamilton is barred by the workmen's compensation statute, F.S. Section 440.11, F.S.A....
...Accordingly, the summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Shell Oil Company, and against the plaintiff, Robert 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....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 23504
...g to give appellant's requested jury instruction regarding the justifiable use of force standard found in section
776.05, Florida Statutes (1985). We find that appellant's other two issues, the trial court's directed verdict against appellant on its section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1985) affirmative defense of worker's compensation immunity on a "borrowed servant" theory, and the alleged denial of its constitutional right to a fair trial, are both without sufficient merit to warrant our discussion....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 1234454
..., Welch, and succeeded to his rights against Complete and PBOA. See id. But Welch had no rights to sue Complete and PBOA in tort because Complete was his employer and paid workers' compensation benefits for the accident. It is immune from suit under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1993)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 342, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1105, 2007 WL 1774420
...t as a cause of the injury. See §§
440.09,
440.10(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). In exchange, *262 employers that comply with the provisions of the chapter are given immunity from civil suit by the employee, except in the most egregious circumstances. See §
440.11, Fla....
...Moreover, I believe that we should discharge jurisdiction because any decision in this case which involves a claim by an employee against an employer for a work-related injury which occurred in 1997 will have limited application because in 2003 the Legislature superseded this Court's opinion in Turner with section 440.11(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Section 440.11(1)(b) codified the intentional tort exception to the workers' compensation immunity doctrine and explicitly provided that an employer's actions shall be deemed an intentional tort where: 1....
...e, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15714
...bility of an employer in lieu of his common law liability. We are not unaware of the Supreme Court's decision in Sunspan Eng. & Const. Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffold Co. [9] There, the court, in affirming the trial court's order holding Florida Statute 440.11(1) unconstitutional as applied in that case, very carefully observed that it was not passing upon the "`no contribution among joint tort-feasors' rule"....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13501, 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41, 935, 59 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1191, 1992 WL 196826
...sexual harassment and subsequent demotion. The County moves for summary judgment on the basis that to the extent that Gomez's claim is one for negligence, it is barred by the exclusivity provision of the state's Workers' Compensation Act (Fla.Stat. §
440.11); and to the extent that Gomez's claim involves a deliberate intent to injure, it is barred by Fla. Stat. §
768.28(9)(a). Florida's Workers' Compensation Act, Fla.Stat. §
440.11 (West 1991), states that an employer's liability to its employees "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability." The Florida Supreme Court has stated that it is "now well established in our law, that workers' compensation general...
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 770386
...im against Roberts only if its liability was vicarious, constructive, derivative, or technical. Roberts also moved for summary judgment on all of Kawa's claims contending that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity under the provisions of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1997)....
...otion for leave to amend its cross-claim to assert a claim against Roberts for contribution. Despite EAC's and Kawa's allegations regarding Roberts's conduct, the court ruled as a matter of law that Roberts was entitled to the immunity provisions of section 440.11, granted Roberts's motion for summary judgment on Kawa's claims, and granted summary judgment in favor of Roberts on EAC's indemnity cross-claim....
...laim. The trial court denied EAC leave to amend its cross-claim based solely on the court's erroneous conclusion that EAC could not state a cause of action for contribution *4 against Roberts because of Roberts's workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11....
...In light of the decision in Turner v. PCR, Inc.,
754 So.2d 683 (Fla.2000), which was decided after the trial court's rulings, the trial court's order denying EAC's motion to amend must be reversed. In Turner, the supreme court confirmed that workers' compensation immunity under section
440.11 is not absolute. Employers are not immune from liability for conduct that is substantially certain to injure an employee. Under section
440.11, an employee gives up the right to assert common law actions for negligence against its employer in exchange for the imposition of strict liability and the rapid recovery of benefits....
...I fully concur in this opinion because it is a correct application of the law announced in Turner v. PCR, Inc.,
754 So.2d 683 (Fla.2000). I am concerned, however, that Turner may inadvertently alter the elements of the tort of battery, as it applies in all contexts, merely to avoid the broad immunity given to employers by section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1997)....
...In my mind, however, the conduct is a negligent omission that may rise to the level of gross or culpable negligence. It might be good public policy for the legislature to make the employer liable for such aggravated negligence to the same extent that fellow employees and corporate officers are personally liable under section 440.11....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Holmes was an employee of Frito Lay and was covered by and received benefits under the provisions of the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. The legislature has provided that the liability of an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1975)....
...The legislature further provided that there is a right *608 of contribution between joint tort-feasors "when two or more persons become jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury." Section
768.31(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Because of the statutory exemption created by Section
440.11(1), we find that Blaw-Knox and Frito Lay, did not become "jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury." We believe the applicable law is correctly stated in United Gas Pipeline Co....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 73, 1991 WL 8
...ted to the injuries. We hold, therefore, that the district court did not err in refusing to permit B & V to introduce evidence on the apportionment of damages. D. Immunity B & V’s final argument is that it is immune from suit under Florida Statute § 440.11(3) (formerly § 440.11(2)) as a safety consultant and that the district court thus erred in denying its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Section 440.11(3) provides as follows: An employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, service agent, or safety consultant shall not be liable as a third-party tortfeasor for assisting the employer in carrying out the employer's rights and responsib...
...ing any safety inspection, safety con-sultive service, or other safety service incidental to the workers’ compensation or employers’ liability coverage or to the workers’ compensation or employer’s liability servicing contract. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.11(3) (West 1981 & Supp.1990)....
...ltant and that this section does not immunize B & V from liability. The Supreme Court of Florida has clearly explained that only an entity statutorily required to provide workers’ compensation insurance may be an “employer” for the purposes of § 440.11(3)....
...rance for a particular project (workers’ compensation, liability, theft, etc.). It is certainly less expensive to purchase insurance in this manner, but there is no legal obligation to do so. Consequently, the OUC cannot be an “employer” under § 440.11(3). Since the OUC is not an “employer” under § 440.11(3), B & V cannot be an employer’s safety consultant. While it is “commendable” that the OUC provided workers’ compensation insurance and that B & V assisted, this “does not entitle the [defendant] to the exclusivity defense of § 440.11....
...In Florida, an employer is entitled to the exclusivity defense only to the extent that such employer has a duty to provide workmen’s compensation coverage.” Richardson v. United States,
577 F.2d 133, 135 (10th Cir.1978). Therefore, we hold that §
440.11(3) does not immunize B & Y from suit....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 13484, 1995 WL 763358
...s injured in the course and scope of his employment and was therefore entitled to worker's compensation coverage. A further contention was that A & K, as Dzafic's employer, and Abraham, as Dzafic's co-employee, were immune from liability pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1993)....
...A & K's supervisor had chosen the hotel for the employees and the company gave them a stipend for food. At no time did Dzafic allege that Abraham acted wantonly, recklessly, or with gross negligence. *233 The trial court held that A & K was entitled to immunity from suit under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1993)....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31875183
...Reeves was an employee and that Fleetwood was a statutory employer who had provided workers' compensation benefits. Thus, the dispositive issue for purposes of summary judgment was whether workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy in this case under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), or, alternatively stated, whether Fleetwood *862 and its employees could be sued in tort despite the availability of the statutory remedy....
...verdict addressing this defense when it is a factual issue submitted to the jury. 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)....
...the benefits under section
440.10 were provided. Instead, a plaintiff seeking damages in tort admits the fact that the benefits are available and then attempts to plead and prove the type of claim that avoids the exclusive liability restrictions of section
440.11....
...An employee may also sue a managerial employee or supervisor, if that person's conduct rises to the level of culpable negligence, or a fellow worker, if that coworker's conduct rises to the level of gross negligence or willful and wanton conduct. See § 440.11, Fla....
...jury could permissibly find the conduct of the two coworkers so irresponsible that it fell to the level of gross negligence. It is worth emphasizing that we address the issue of gross negligence in the context of workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2826996
...protect the well being of its employee, Keith A. Creason. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions to act of Defendant, SCARBOROUGH CIVIL CORPORATION, *1148 as hereinabove alleged, Defendant, SCARBOROUGH CIVIL CORPORATION, violated §
440.11 Florida Statutes and §
775.082 Florida Statutes and 29 CFR 666(e), providing for a maximum penalty that be may [sic] imposed which exceeds sixty (60) days imprisonment of Defendant, SCARBOROUGH CIVIL CORPORATION, supervisory personnel....
...s hereinabove alleged and the violation of Statutes as hereinabove cited, all of which contributed to or caused the death of Keith A. Creason, the Defendant, SCARBOROUGH CIVIL CORPORATION, abrogated its Worker's Compensation immunity as set forth in § 440.11(1) Florida Statutes....
...5th DCA 2004). The standard of review for summary judgments is also de novo. Kaplan v. Morse,
870 So.2d 934 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Mivan (Florida), Inc. v. Metric Constructors, Inc.,
857 So.2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). [5] In 2003, the Legislature amended section
440.11(1) and overruled Turner in part....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 205, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 556, 2006 WL 870503
...In response to the complaint, the county claimed that Aravena's action was barred by the portion of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law that accords tort immunity to coemployees "acting in furtherance of the employer's business" and that the exception for employees "assigned primarily to unrelated works" did not apply. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...ir primary assignments fall within the exception to the general immunity provision of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, which provides that immunity is not available in cases involving coemployees that are "assigned primarily to unrelated works." § 440.11(1)....
..... 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. The immunity afforded to the employer under section
440.11(1) also extends to "each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business." However, this coemployee immunity does not apply to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, wit...
...such acts proximately cause such injury or death, ... [or] to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. § 440.11(1) (emphasis supplied)....
...By using overly broad definitions of the same project and the coemployees' job duties, the Third District ignored the other factors considered in Lluch. Its analysis also ignores the fact that the exception assumes that the coemployees are operating in "furtherance of the employer's *1173 business," § 440.11(1), and, thus, are all working on the same general project....
...ther guidance to the trial courts and the district courts of appeal. We held in Taylor that the exception should be narrowly tailored. However, we did not intend to eviscerate the exception. Thus, we must return to the statutory language employed in section 440.11(1) to determine the scope of the exception and its application. In deciding more precisely what the Legislature intended by the term "assigned primarily to unrelated works," we focus on the use of the words "assigned primarily." § 440.11(1). We conclude that the phrase "assigned primarily to unrelated works" in section 440.11(1) has both an operational and a locational component....
...for different departments and at different locations, answer to different supervisors, and have primary assignments involving different duties and functions are engaged in unrelated works triggering the exception to workers' compensation immunity in section 440.11(1)....
...they are all charged to carry out the mission of the employer. At the same time, however, some distinction could always be drawn between the work of most employees so as to make their work unrelated. Because the unrelated works exception set out in section 440.11(1) represents an exception to the broad exclusive remedy provisions of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, we conclude that under the ordinary rules of statutory construction we must interpret it narrowly....
...id work at the same location from suing a coemployee, the Legislature could have used more precise language to effectuate this intent. For example, as noted by the county, an earlier version of what eventually became the unrelated works exception in section 440.11(1) provided that an employee could sue a fellow employee where "they are not assigned to the same job site or are assigned primarily to unrelated works." Fla....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 144250
...Rubio collected workers' compensation benefits, and then sued Kline Meats, owner/operator Larry Kline, board member Lois Kline, and company vice president Steven Caine. [1] The appellants moved for summary judgment in the trial court, arguing they were immune from suit under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987). The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, and in so doing, erred. Section 440.11 establishes the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits....
...3d DCA 1994) (not an intentional tort when employee injured while operating a plastic injection molding machine); cf. Connelly v. Arrow Air., Inc.,
568 So.2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied,
581 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 1991). Prior to an amendment in 1988, section
440.11 also provided immunity for fellow employees unless they acted with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence. §
440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1131335
...sation claim against JSR. After conclusion of this claim, the Appellant filed the underlying action against PSI alleging negligence. PSI filed a Verified Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Complaint as a Sham Pleading alleging that section
440.11 clearly barred the Appellant's recovery. In response, the Appellant asserted that his claim was based upon the decision in Lowry v. Logan,
650 So.2d 653, 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and urged the trial court to adopt a reading of section
440.11 that would apply only when a contractor sublets part of the contract, not all of it....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2451759
...cal equipment and corresponding support services. 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....
...Special Employment A special employer is one to whom a general employer has lent its employee. A special employer may be immune from suit on the basis of the common law special employment relationship that is premised on the borrowed-employee doctrine or on the basis of the statutory special employment relationship, § 440.11(2)....
...If anything, the record demonstrates that Derogatis's general employment by AES continued. Thus, the record does not support a final summary judgment in favor of Fawcett on the issue of common law special employment. 2. Statutory Special Employment Section 440.11(2) provides as follows: [I]mmunity from liability ......
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 258074
...the worker's compensation statutes. The central rationale of Smith is that leased equipment on a job site in effect has become the working tool of the employer. Id. at 424. Thus, the exclusivity principle of worker's compensation comes to bear. See § 440.11, Fla....
...The court decided that the crane company was immune from liability in negligence based on the worker's compensation statutes, stating: The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that suit against KBH and Ward was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of section 440.11, Florida Statutes, the workers compensation statute....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 4450, 2003 WL 1622771
...Justice of Lawlor, Winston & Justice, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Vanessa A. Reynolds and Susanne E. Riedhammer of Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. GROSS, J. Our focus is whether this case falls within the unrelated works exception to coemployee immunity pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...mployees. The section provides that the same immunity extends to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business. Holmes County Sch. Bd. v. Duffell,
651 So.2d 1176, 1177-78 (Fla.1995) (citing *462 §
440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1995)). However, an exception under which employee immunity is not applicable occurs when injuries result from the conduct of employees "assigned primarily to unrelated works." Section
440.11(1) further provides that: Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence...
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ent 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....
...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....
...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. § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 86210
...Cohen of Kroll & Tract, P.A., Miami, for Appellees. ANTOON, Judge. Nicholas Venezia, an employee of East Coast Welding (ECW), sued R. & J. Crane Services, Inc. and Andy Egan for negligence. R. & J. Crane raised the defense of "borrowed servant immunity" under Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 291936
...Appellant alleges that Gumby's knew with substantial certainty that he would be attacked and beaten when he was ordered to deliver the pizza on April 12. Both the original and amended complaints were dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because they failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome the burden of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991), employer immunity, with regard to the employer exhibiting a deliberate attempt to injure or engage in conduct which is substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee....
...Dawkins,
624 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The Workers' Compensation Act (Act) provides compensation for an employee who "suffers an accidental injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment." §
440.09, Fla.Stat. (1991). Section
440.11, Florida Statutes, provides that employer liability as prescribed in the Act is the exclusive remedy available to the employee....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 380, 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1306, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 1252, 2006 WL 1641944
...fault, for losses resulting from workplace injuries in exchange for the employee relinquishing his or her right to seek certain common law remedies from the employer for those injuries under certain circumstances. On the date Mr. Jones was injured, section
440.11(1) of the Florida Statutes (2000), 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 . . . to the employee. . . ." §
440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 WL 129600
...urance. Indeed, under the workers' compensation law, "workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy available to an injured employee as to any negligence on the part of that employee's employer." Eller v. Shova,
630 So.2d 537, 539 (Fla.1993) (citing §
440.11(1), Fla....
...dian Harbor policy. Because Williams did not secure workers' compensation insurance for its injured employees, Brown and Moore both have the option of either pursuing workers' compensation claims directly against Williams, or suing Williams in tort. § 440.11(1)(a), Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 3589
...le theories upon which recovery may be had. That is not the case with respect to an injured employee. Where an injury is suffered in the course and scope of employment, worker's compensation is the exclusive remedy for recovery against the employer. § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 346
...The defendants/appellants appeal the judgment which was entered on the verdict. The appellants do not question Leonard's negligence in causing the accident. Rather, they contend that they were entitled to a directed verdict because of Leonard's immunity as a coemployee under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...paid to Grier. The second is whether, based on this record, Halifax established its right of common law indemnity against Scott & Jobalia. The third is whether statutory immunity granted to Scott & Jobalia pursuant to the worker's compensation act (§ 440.11(1)) prevents it from being liable as Halifax's indemnitor, and whether immunity pursuant to the worker's compensation act, should have barred any liability on Halifax's part to Grier....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1450, 1999 WL 72599
...cross the school grounds. The School Board moved for summary judgment asserting workers' compensation immunity because Laing had accepted workers compensation benefits and therefore was precluded from asserting a tort claim against his employer. See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (1997). The trial court denied the School Board's motion finding that the "unrelated works" exception in Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997), applied thus allowing Laing to sue the School Board for his injuries. Section 440.11(1) provides an exception to workers' compensation immunity when employees are "operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment." § 440.11(1), Fla....
...re involved as part of a team in promoting education at the school campus. Because both were engaged in activities primarily related to the provision of education related services, the "unrelated works" exception to the School Board's immunity under Section 440.11(1) does not apply....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21902
...The first question we consider is whether an employee has a common law action for the alleged negligence of an employer causing an injury which was not an "injury arising out of the employment," as defined in Florida Statute
440.02(18), and hence is not compensable under chapter 440, the Florida Workers' Compensation Law. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979), provides for the exclusiveness of liability of an employer as follows: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31870185
...ble by his employer's compensation carrier. [4] See Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Whitworth,
442 So.2d at 1079. In conclusion, we find the allegations in the present case are insufficient to come within any exception to the statutory immunity provided by section
440.11, Florida Statutes (2000)....
...d worker and to facilitate the worker's return to gainful reemployment at a reasonable cost to the employer." §
440.015, Fla. Stat. (1999). In exchange for affording employees these benefits, an employer is shielded by statutory immunity from suit. §
440.11, Fla....
...s injuries. Furthermore, as noted prior, other remedies for Aguilera's claims are provided for by the Act. [4] Aguilera's argument that a carrier does not have immunity for acts which occur after a workplace injury, contradicts the obvious intent of section 440.11(4), Florida Statutes (2000), as well as common sense. Section 440.11(4) extends immunity from liability to the employer's workers' compensation carrier....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 455, 1993 Fla. LEXIS 1342, 1993 WL 322924
...period of time. As "new hires," these individuals were given some training, but there is a serious question about its adequacy and what was in fact covered. Eastern Airlines was immune from suit pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, Fla. Stat. § 440.11....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Appeal and Error § 1324(3) at pp. 341-42 (1958). AFFIRMED. MILLS, J., concurs. WENTWORTH, J., concurs specially with opinion. WENTWORTH, Judge, concurring specially. Appellant's argument before the deputy and in this court challenges only §
440.15(3)(a)1 [1] and §
440.11, [2] Florida Statutes....
...Declaratory relief of that kind is not, of course, provided either by Chapter 440 or by original jurisdiction of this court in the case before us. Appellant's contention is that the Florida Constitution's access clause [5] compels nullification of §
440.11, Florida Statutes, because §
440.15(3)(a)(1) excludes his impairment from compensation while including loss of a thumb in whole or in part by amputation....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Related matter, see, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Thompson Aircraft Tire Corporation,
353 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Smith,
359 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1978), dealing with the concept of contribution and the Workmen's Compensation Act, §
440.11, as it relates to employer immunity from tort liability....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9155, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2016
...Under this theory, Bardy would have to show that he was acting in the course of his employment when he was injured, a showing which would raise the issue of whether worker's compensation is Bardy's exclusive remedy against Disney. See, e.g., Wishart v. Laidlaw Tree Service, Inc.,
573 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); §
440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...Appellant claims that his affidavit in opposition to the summary judgment was sufficient to show the existence of a material fact issue; namely, that the negligence of appellee Reitz constituted gross negligence. The summary judgment was granted on the basis of section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1979), [1] which provides immunity from tort *741 liability to a fellow employee when that employee was acting in furtherance of the employer's business except when the employee was acting with gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard of the interests of the victim or when the victim and fellow employee were assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. McCarroll v. Reagan,
396 So.2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Section
440.11 does not abrogate a cause of action for gross negligence....
...Appellant has not met the burden of showing facts from which gross negligence could reasonably be inferred. Thus the statute applies to provide immunity for appellee since appellant has already received his worker's compensation benefits. AFFIRMED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979) provides in pertinent part: 1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ommon law. In return, the employer "may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by negligence of a fellow servant, that the employee assumed the risk of employment, or that the injury was due to the comparative negligence of the employee." § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 741110
...Plaintiff was an employee of Builder's Square when he fell off the ladder. Under Florida's Workers Compensation law, an employer is generally entitled to immunity from tort claims by its employees if it has otherwise complied with the Workers Compensation law. See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 719518
...m liability under the worker's compensation law upon payment of the stipulated amount of benefits. Welch then brought this action in tort against Maxson alleging that it was his employer and that he could bring this action against Maxson pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1995), because it did not provide worker's compensation benefits for him. Maxson filed an answer and affirmative defenses asserting that Welch's action was barred by the immunity provisions of the worker's compensation law, § 440.11(2)....
...ing company is the employer of the leased employees... and shall be responsible for providing compensation coverage pursuant to Chapter 440." Furthermore, employers such as Maxson which use employee leasing companies are immune from suit pursuant to section 440.11(2), which provides as follows: (2) The immunity from liability described in subsection (1) shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which utilizes the services of the employees of a help supply services company,...
...Traditionally, employee leasing companies hire workers and then assign them to the employers. In this case, Maxson hired Welch and then had him sign documents which declared him to be an employee of AMA. This fact did not remove Maxson from the statutory immunity from suit provided by section 440.11(2)....
...Accordingly, we reverse the order finding that Welch was not an employee of AMA and that the worker's compensation issues have been resolved in favor of Welch and remand with directions that the trial court dismiss Welch's action against Maxson with prejudice due to Maxson's immunity from suit under section 440.11(2)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 678897
...The Workers' Compensation Law itself contains an exception where the employer has violated a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty that may be imposed exceeds sixty days' imprisonment as set forth in section
775.082, Florida Statutes (1997). See §
440.11(1)....
...Wilson was subjected to the possibility of incarceration because the decedent's fall was the second accident in this improperly guarded open elevator shaft, combined with the fact that the injuries resulted in death. Wilson contends that the negation of workers' compensation immunity for violations of law contained in section 440.11(1) applies only to violations of Florida law....
...e standard to measure whether the employer engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury."
754 So.2d at 691 (emphasis added). This decision appears to be in conformance with the legislative intent embodied in the adoption of section
440.11(1), which establishes an objective standard for judging workers' compensation immunity....
...A safety regulation violation that is so serious as to subject the violator to imprisonment exceeding the sixty days established by Florida law should also deprive the employer of workers' compensation immunity. We conclude this comports with the intent of section 440.11(1) and the objective standard established in Turner....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 637504
...Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for appellee. [3] HERSEY, GLICKSTEIN and KLEIN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Appellant relies upon the general proposition that where an employee is injured in the course and scope of employment, workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy of recovery. See § 440.11, Fla....
...disputed factual issues. [2] The immediate case is distinguishable from Akins v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Co.,
330 So.2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied,
344 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1977), upon which appellant relies. In Akins, the court held that based on section
440.11, Florida Statutes, and principles of estoppel by judgment, the plaintiff's civil action was barred by the determination of the Judge of Industrial Claims that the plaintiff was not injured in the course of her employment....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 70846
...ent which holds DOC liable for the negligence of its employee who fatally struck an employee of the Department of Transportation (DOT) in an automobile accident. [1] DOC contends that it is immune from suit based on the exclusive remedy provision of §
440.11, Florida Statutes, and the sovereign immunity provision in §
768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes....
...icable because the DOT and DOC are two different employers. They argue in the alternative that even if the workers' compensation act were applicable, the instant case would fall within the unrelated works exception to coemployee immunity pursuant to § 440.11(1), Fla....
...The state, not *7 the agency, is the employer for purposes of the workers' compensation act. Although the workers' compensation act is applicable, the present case falls within the unrelated works exception to the workers' compensation exclusive remedy provision. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...1987) (the legislature is without power to abolish *8 common law rights predating Article I, Section 21, without providing a reasonable alternative to protect the rights of the people of the state to redress for injuries). In 1978, the Florida Legislature amended section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, and limited this common law right by extending the employer's immunity from suit to employees, except in cases involving intentional torts, gross negligence, or situations in which coemployees are engaged in unrelated work....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 6357, 1988 WL 39120
...The district court granted Tri-State’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that, as a matter of law, Judy must be deemed an employee of Tri-State and accordingly that his tort claim against TriState was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.11 (1981)....
...Kendall Sharp handled the pre-trial motions in this case, but shortly before trial, the case was reassigned to Judge Patricia C. Faw-sett. 6 . Judy's wife was also a plaintiff at trial, but she was not awarded any damages. She is not a part of this appeal. 7 . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.11 (West 1981), infra note 11....
...riers injured by their fellows’ negligence since they could recover from their employer in workmen’s compensation.” The explanation in Price seems to indicate further that the rule laid down in White applies universally. 11 . See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.11 (West 1981), which provides in part: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6554, 2010 WL 1875616
...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....
...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....
...ee of one subcontractor against another subcontractor: 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....
...ction with a contractor on the same project or contract work is not liable for payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor or the contractor on such contract work and is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 from any action at law or in admiralty on account of injury to an employee of another subcontractor, or of the contractor, provided that: 1....
...raci v. Grundy Marine Constr. *99 Co.,
315 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1205 n. 11 (N.D.Fla.2004) (citing Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. for the proposition that because Chapter 2003-412 of the Laws of Florida set an effective date of October 1, 2003 for an amendment to section
440.11 with respect to the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity, "such inclusion rebuts an argument that a retroactive application was intended")....
...a subcontractor who has secured such payment. .... (e) 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. Section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes (2001) provides, in relevant part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 246068
...for review denied,
450 So.2d 487 (Fla.1984); Padgett,
417 So.2d at 764; Mozer v. Semenza,
177 So.2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). II. As to the remaining appellees, however, we conclude that summary judgment was properly entered because of the immunity conferred by section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997) of the Worker's Compensation Law....
...In doing so, we first reject the plaintiffs claim that section
553.84, Florida Statutes (1997), which creates a cause of action for violations of the State Minimum Building Codes, [8] such as were claimed in this case, overcomes or "trumps" the effect of section
440.11....
...1st DCA 1981); Pappas v. Hill-Staton Engineers, Inc., 183 Ga.App. 258, 358 S.E.2d 625 (1987). B. Although the issue is closer, we also disagree with the contention that the conduct of the employer and general contractor falls within the recognized exception to section 440.11 immunity which arises when, objectively viewed, alleged employer misconduct either `exhibit[s] a deliberate intent to injure or......
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 353493
...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. Section
440.11(1) provides, in part, that "[T]he liability of an employer ......
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 84319
...eria in section
768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), to constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity granted state employees. The appellant contends that the court erred in applying section
768.28(9)(a), rather than the more lenient provisions of section
440.11(1) of the Workers' Compensation Law which extends immunity from liability to all employees acting in furtherance of the employer's business, except when there is willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or gross negligence resulting in injury or death. Both statutes waive immunity for willful and wanton acts but only section
440.11 encompasses gross negligence....
...The appellant argues that the workers' compensation provision which governs tort actions between coemployees, should control because application of the more stringent standard in the sovereign immunity statute denies the appellant a remedy granted by section 440.11....
...den.,
504 So.2d 767 (Fla. 1987); State v. Billie,
497 So.2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), rev. den.,
506 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1987). The Workers' Compensation Law is generally applicable to all employers, and extends limited immunity to employers and their employees. §
440.11(1), Fla....
...*977 Miami Burglar Alarm Co.,
339 So.2d 175 (Fla. 1976). In affirming the court's decision that the more stringent standards of section
768.28(9)(a) control, we need not decide whether the allegations of the amended complaint state a cause of action for gross negligence under section
440.11....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...tractor did not make their work "unrelated" [2] so that the immunity enjoyed by the subcontractor from suit by an employee of the general contractor would be inapplicable. While there is no direct precedent for determining what is related work under Section 440.11, Florida Statute (1981), several prior cases indicate the broad scope of immunity afforded a subcontractor for injuries to an employee of a general contractor....
...Blair Contracting Company, Inc.,
350 So.2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Mack v. Cook & Pruitt Masonry, Inc.,
186 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Affirmed. NOTES [1] Appellant concedes that the subcontractor is an employee of the general contractor so as to render applicable the fellow servant rule of Section
440.11, Florida Statute (1981)....
...of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors ... 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... . 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 410686
...Rather, the reverse is true. The School Board made a profit in connection with the 1989 Summer Lunch Program which was not shared with the City. Moreover, City employee Sharel Grissett testified that the School Board would have to bear any losses it incurred. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, provides an exception to the workers' compensation exclusive remedy provision when employees "are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment." The unrelated works exception was applied in Holmes County School Board v....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...First, they denied that they were negligent and caused Penton's injury. Then, pleading alternatively, they alleged that their negligence, if any, constituted a common law tort, rather than a maritime tort, the recovery for which was barred by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, Fla.Stat. § 440.11(1) (1987)....
...e activity. Without such a nexus between the alleged wrong and traditional maritime activity, Penton's claim cannot constitute a maritime tort and, consequently, it is not immune from the preclusive effect of Florida's workers' compensation statute, section 440.11(1)....
...Following the accident, Penton applied for and received workers' compensation benefits from Pompano's insurer. 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....
...sor 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 or in admiralty on account of such injury or death.... Fla.Stat. § 440.11(1) (1987). Because section 440.11(1) foreclosed whatever common law tort claims Penton had against Pompano, Futch, and Futch Leasing, Penton did not, in his complaint, present a common law tort claim against them; rather, he sued them under the maritime law which, he contended, would not give effect to the preclusive provision of Florida's workers' compensation statute, section 440.11(1)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida
...le and exclusive remedy available to a worker injured in a manner that falls within the broad scope and polices of Florida's workers' compensation statute. Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec., Inc., 552 *
1330 So.2d 1099, 1100 (Fla.1989); FLA. STAT. §
440.11 (an employer's liability to an employee "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability...."); see also, e.g., Eller v....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Vista moved for summary judgment in support of which Vista showed that, as the owner and general contractor on the job, it had provided Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for all workmen on the job and was thereby entitled to the immunity from tort actions provided by Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1980)....
...The trial court granted a summary judgment for Vista based upon a finding that Vista was bound by a contract to construct the improvements for a third party, Gibraltar and was thus required to furnish Workers' Compensation benefits for Sheedy which in turn entitled Vista to the immunity provided by Section 440.11....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13448, 2007 WL 2456209
...TSC responded to the tort action and asserted numerous affirmative defenses, only one of which is at issue on this appeal. [1] The trial judge granted Kent's motion for partial summary judgment as to the affirmative defense of immunity on the ground that TSC is now estopped from asserting immunity under sections
440.11 and
440.10, Florida Statutes....
...t. Employee was clocked out and had exited the building when she tripped over a bench on the pavement." Following this denial, the Byerleys filed their tort action. The employer raised as an affirmative defense the exclusivity provision contained in section 440.11, Florida Statutes, and obtained a final summary judgment which found that as a matter of law, the injury occurred in the scope and course of employment....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10734, 2000 WL 1188352
...The School Board of Broward County ("School Board") appeals from a nonfinal order denying its motion for summary judgment on whether it was entitled to worker's compensation immunity. We hold that the instant case does not fall within the unrelated works exception to co-employee immunity pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997), and, therefore, reverse....
...Victorin received worker's compensation benefits from the School Board for injuries arising from this accident. He then filed a common-law negligence suit against the School Board based on the negligence of Golden. The School Board, arguing it was immune from suit pursuant to section 440.11, filed a motion for summary judgment....
...e motion. This appeal followed. The Florida Workers' Compensation Act provides for the payment of compensation benefits whenever disability or death results from an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. §
440.01 et seq., Fla. Stat. Section
440.11(1) provides that compensation under the act is the exclusive remedy available to such an employee. Section
440.11(1) further provides, The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter....
...or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. ... *553 § 440.11(1), Fla....
...te on the same construction project. The third district held that the fact that appellant was a common laborer for the general contractor and the tortfeasor was a welder for the subcontractor did not make their work "unrelated" within the meaning of section
440.11(1). Therefore, it held that the subcontractor was immune from suit. Id. at 909. Later, in Lake v. Ramsay,
566 So.2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), this court reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the co-employee under section
440.11(1)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 497991
...In that regard, we have carefully considered the analogies of Mandico v. Taos Construction, Inc.,
605 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1992). In that case, the supreme court held prohibition to be an improper writ to be employed to raise the defense of workers' compensation immunity pursuant to section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1983) in a personal injury action. We find several pertinent distinguishing factors in that case that cause us to reach the conclusion that we should grant certiorari in this proceeding. In Mandico, first of all, the supreme court found that a contractor's immunity under section
440.11 "is not apparent from a simple reading of the Workers' Compensation Law......
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 516442
...Similarly, the court erred in denying summary judgment in favor of Medlin and Hatfill because there is no evidence that the conduct of either Medlin or Hatfill [2] constituted the crime of culpable negligence or that their conduct would warrant punitive damages. § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 107357
...The grocery store's pleading established worker's compensation as an affirmative defense and under the facts of this case, a directed verdict should have been rendered in its favor, as well as in favor of the co-employee, Vincent Magliulo, as the claim against him rested upon simple negligence which is barred under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1985)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1997 WL 664964
...The crew members have come forward with an affidavit from an expert who states unequivocally that since American "has not made payments of benefits pursuant to the Florida Workers' Compensation Act to the dependents of the crew members, [it] may not avail itself of the statutory immunity set forth in § 440.11." Aff....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 596
...Khouzam of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, St. Petersburg, for appellant. Alan S. Zimmet, Asst. City Atty., Clearwater, and Thomas A. Bustin, Gainesville, for appellee. SHAW, Justice. We have before us City of Clearwater v. L.M. Duncan & Sons, Inc.,
466 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), holding section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), unconstitutional as applied to the City of Clearwater (the City) in this case....
...on of the project, or by or on account of any act or omission, neglect or misconduct of the Contractor. Duncan moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the City was negligent and that Duncan was immune from having to indemnify the City under section 440.11(1), because it had provided the injured employee workers' compensation benefits. Section 440.11(1) provides as follows: 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...The trial court granted Duncan's motion to dismiss. The district court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal on the authority of this Court's decision in Sunspan Engineering and Construction Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co.,
310 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1975), wherein we held that section
440.11(1) was unconstitutional as applied to bar a third party tortfeasor's common law action for indemnification against a negligent employer who paid his injured employee workers' compensation benefits....
...While the City must be without fault in order to seek indemnity, Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards,
374 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1979); Seaboard Coastline Railroad v. Smith,
359 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1978), the factual determination of whether the City was at fault has not yet been made. Duncan's second point, that section
440.11(1) precludes a third party tortfeasor from bringing an action for indemnification against an employer, has been decided otherwise in Sunspan....
...I dissent because in my view Sunspan Engineering and Construction Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co.,
310 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1975), was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The intent of the legislature to establish the exclusive liability of an employer in section
440.11 of the Workers' Compensation Law is clear....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 87242
...We reverse the order of final summary judgment and remand for further consistent proceedings. [5] Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. NOTES [1] The precise date of manufacture of the pressure cooker is not clear from the record and remains a disputed issue of fact to be resolved upon remand. [2] § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1255454
...non to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law. Thus, we reverse the trial court's order for the reasons that follow. Workers' compensation benefits generally constitute the exclusive remedy available to an injured employee as provided in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2003)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...nd appellant was a statutory employee of appellee. Accordingly, workers' compensation was appellant's exclusive remedy. The summary judgment for appellee was proper and is hereby AFFIRMED. ORFINGER, C.J., and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, J., concur. NOTES [1] § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...was affirmed. Employees of the fruit company were injured when the company bus collided with a Seacoast train. The employees' injuries were paid for by the employer under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act without regard to fault. See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 125088
...defendants' alleged negligence in the construction of the ceiling of the Watermark condominium garage, which collapsed on him while he was working on the premises. Fernandez moved for summary judgment on the ground that he was immune from suit under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987), as a coemployee at the time of the accident....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1967
...In order for an injury to be covered by the workers' compensation law, the injury must arise "out of and in the course of employment." Section
440.09(1), Florida Statutes. In the case of such an injuury, the employer's liability under the workers' compensation statute is exclusive and in place of all other liability. Section
440.11(1)....
...s an issue of fact as to whether Greathead's actions in riding the chipper constituted "horseplay" so as to remove him from the course of employment at the time of the injury. We also reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of appellee/Jacobs. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes provides that the immunities from liability enjoyed by the employer also extend to employees of the employer "where such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive [workers' compensation] benefits... ." The immunity is not applicable, however, if the employee acts "with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death... ." Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes. Thus, as we find that an issue of fact exists as to whether Greathead's injury occurred within the course of his employment, we find that summary judgment as to Jacobs on the basis of section 440.11(1) was improper....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...First, appellant suggests that the trial court may have determined that worker's compensation insurance was the exclusive remedy available under these circumstances. If this were the sole basis for the trial court's order, then it would be clearly erroneous, as suggested by appellant. It is correct to state that Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979) provides that the liability of an employer for worker's compensation is in lieu of any other liability to the employee and therefore is his exclusive remedy....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 101590
...of action for gross negligence in accordance with Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1987) and Gerentine v. Coastal Security Systems,
529 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) construing the exception from workers' compensation immunity contained in section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 213124
...appear in appellant's final complaint. The second amended complaint was also dismissed by order dated June 13, 1991. The trial court found the Florida workers' compensation system provided the exclusive remedy for appellant's injury. The court held section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989), was constitutional....
...334,
5 So.2d 867 (1942), the court approved the automobile guest statute which raised the degree of negligence *403 necessary to maintain a tort action from negligence to gross negligence. The supreme court approved a similar change when, in 1978, the legislature amended section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....
...r, unless the employees act with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence. Iglesia. Relying on what the court in Kluger stated about McMillan, the supreme court in Iglesia approved the 1978 amendment to section 440.11(1) which raised the degree of negligence to gross negligence in cases where an employee sues a fellow employee for injuries received within the scope of employment....
...1987). The result of the Streeter decision was that an officer or director could be sued by a fellow employee just as any other coemployee could be sued for willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or for gross negligence under section 440.11(1). In 1988, the legislature again amended section 440.11(1)....
...thin the course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties and was not a violation of a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed exceeds 60 days imprisonment as set forth in s.
775.082. §
440.11(1), Fla....
...See §
775.082(4)(a), (b), Fla. Stat. (1989). Section
784.05(2) provides that a person commits a first degree misdemeanor when that person, "through culpable negligence, inflicts actual personal injury on another." Appellant argues that when the legislature amended section
440.11(1) in 1988, it essentially abolished a cause of action without providing a reasonable alternative in violation of the access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution....
...Appellees, on the other hand, argue that the legislature did not abolish a cause of action, because appellant is not prohibited from bringing suit under a higher degree of negligence. Appellees rely on Iglesia in support of their position that the 1988 legislative amendment to section 440.11(1) does not violate the access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution. Appellees contend that under Iglesia the legislature may change the degree of negligence necessary to maintain a tort action, as long as the plaintiff can still bring some type of action. Under the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1), appellees, as managerial/policymaking-type employees, claim they are immune from suit for gross negligence. By this 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1), the legislature has taken away a cause of action in negligence and in gross negligence and in so doing has abolished any civil cause of action in negligence....
...Workers' compensation provides an alternative only as to an employer. Accordingly, appellees' reliance on the workers compensation system as a reasonable alternative in this case is misplaced. We feel that the legislature has gone too far with this 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1)....
...Just how far can the legislature go if we hold this criminal standard of liability to be a reasonable alternative to negligence actions between coemployees? Because the legislature abolished a civil cause of action in negligence, for an unintentional act, we hold that section 440.11(1), as amended, is unconstitutional, as it violates the access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution. Art. I, § 21, Fla. Const. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. THREADGILL, J., concurs. ALTENBERND, J., dissents with opinion. ALTENBERND, Judge, dissenting. Although the amendment to section 440.11 in chapter 88-289, Laws of Florida, addresses a legitimate problem, it provides a misguided solution....
...The criminal act operated as an intervening cause of the injury, breaking the causal connection between the defendant's negligent act and *406 the victim's injury. Not until Nicholas v. Miami Burglar Alarm Co.,
339 So.2d 175 (Fla. 1976), did this traditional rule of common law change. Accordingly, section
440.11 did not deprive this plaintiff of any right of redress existing at common law as of 1968. If section
440.11 deprives some other person of a theory that was viable in 1968, this constitutional question should await that person's case....
...Thus, such a vice principal had no actionable duty under the common law to a coworker or, alternatively, possessed the same statutory immunity that the employer possessed for that duty. D. Statutory Rights and Common Law After Streeter In Streeter, the supreme court held that section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981), did not statutorily distinguish between types of corporate employees and that the statute did not provide immunity for managerial employees....
...Although Scofi, West, and Kaplan have been overruled by Streeter, I continue to believe that they accurately analyzed the common law liability of a vice principal in 1968. Therefore, I conclude that the legislature had the constitutional power to overrule Streeter and to provide an amendment to section 440.11 which strictly limits the right of redress against people who would have been vice principals under the common law of 1968....
...the state has not waived its immunity for these decisions. See Trianon Park Condominium Ass'n v. City of Hialeah,
468 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1985); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County,
371 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 1979). I cannot hold the amendment to section
440.11 unconstitutional when section
768.28 has passed a similar test....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...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....
...grounded on vicarious liability, see Hunt v. Ryder Truck Lines, Fla. 1968,
216 So.2d 751. [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....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103909, 2009 WL 3739072
...And, generally, under the workers' compensation law, an employee may not "double dip." That is, where recovery under the workers' compensation law is possible, an injured employee may not receive compensation for the same injury from another source. [14] See Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1)....
...Nonetheless, coverage is not required under Coverage B of the policy because Rodriguez is not an insured. See Section III.A of this Order. [14] Under some limited circumstances, employees may seek and receive compensation for a workplace injury in addition to that available under the workers' compensation system. Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1)....
...an that that liability would also attach to the employer or its insurer. And, in any event, for purposes of the insurance policy at issue, the tortfeasor-employee would not be an insured because his acts, if they fit into the categories described in § 440.11(1), would not be within the scope of his employment or related to the conduct of Schratter Foods' business....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 764178
...ISSUE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION IMMUNITY? Unrelated Works Creighton also argues that he and Turner were engaged in "unrelated works" at the time he was injured, enabling him to sue for negligence without regard to workers' compensation immunity. See § 440.11(1), Fla....
...he same project" at PCR, and hence were engaged in related, rather than unrelated, works. Vause. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court, and certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court. ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] See § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4015, 2001 WL 293692
...The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the School Board based on its workers' compensation *1173 immunity. We agree that by accepting workers' compensation benefits, Sanchez was precluded from asserting a tort claim against her employer. See § 440.11, Fla....
..."The fact that employees have different duties does not necessarily mean they are involved in `unrelated works.'... Because both were engaged in activities primarily related to the provision of education related services, the `unrelated works' exception to the School Board's immunity under Section 440.11(1) does not apply." Id....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 845, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7349
...That the operator of the vehicle in which the Plaintiff was riding was a co-employee of the Plaintiff at that time; that the Plaintiff was therefore entitled to receive Workmen's Compensation benefits as a result of his alleged injuries and did, indeed, so receive said benefits; and that c. By virtue of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, the Plaintiff is not legally entitled to recover tort damages from the operator of the vehicle in which he was riding as a passenger....
...against the tortfeasor. Boynton,
486 So.2d at 557. Where the tortfeasor-uninsured motorist, owing to an act of gross negligence, causes injury to a fellow employee while acting in furtherance of the employer's business, the immunity provided for by section
440.11 is not available to that fellow employee....
...dicial decisions. Building Service Employers Int'l Union v. Gazzam,
339 U.S. 532, 537,
70 S.Ct. 784, 787,
94 L.Ed. 1045 (1950). We are aware of no public policy, expressed or implied, which justifies broadening the statutory fellow-servant immunity, section
440.11, to apply to this case....
...determined by arbitration and not by the court. The summary final judgment for the insurer and the order denying the Stacks' motion to compel arbitration are both reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to order arbitration. NOTES [1] Section 440.11(1) provides in part: The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this Chapter....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1024991
...ured 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....
...accident as compensable and began making workers' compensation payments to Cuero. Cuero filed a second-amended complaint on January 5, 2001. Ryland and Sunfish both answered, raising as an affirmative defense their immunity from tort liability under section 440.11....
...Cuero, Ryland, and Sunfish each moved for summary judgment on the worker's compensation immunity and waiver and estoppel issues. The trial court concluded *328 that Ryland was a contractor and statutory employer entitled to the protection afforded by section 440.11 and that since Ryland had secured worker's compensation insurance and made it available to Cuero, Sunfish, too, was protected from tort liability....
...n 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....
...s consistent with this opinion. NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. 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....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5681, 2004 WL 895889
...Workers' Compensation Immunity under Florida Law In the current motions for summary judgment, all Defendants request the Court to grant summary judgment in their favor under the immunity provision of Florida's workers' compensation statute. See Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1) (2002)....
...nefits. "At the same time..., the statutory scheme itself explicitly recognizes the liability of co-employees [and supervisors] to injured employees under certain limited conditions, including intentional or reckless actions." Id. (citing Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1) (1997))....
...Culpable Negligence of a Supervisor/Manager As the Court indicated above, employers are not the only defendants who are clothed with workers' compensation immunity. Supervisors are also entitled to the same immunity from suit to which the employer is entitled. See Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1) (2002). Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any...supervisor...who in the course and scope of his or her duties acts in a managerial or policymaking capacit...
...Thus, "when evaluating whether the negligent conduct of [a] managerial [employee] rises to a level sufficient to abrogate their statutory immunity, such negligence must be equivalent to a violation of law constituting a first-degree misdemeanor or higher crime." Id. "Thus, pursuant to subsection 440.11(1), there would be no workers' compensation immunity for a managerial employee who, through culpable negligence, actively inflicted injury, but there would be immunity for a managerial employee who passively exposed an employee to inju...
...Feraci, or some similar worker, would result but, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued their course of conduct and/or actively and knowingly participated in such conduct. (Doc. 55, ¶ 7B). [11] The Court notes that in 2003, the Florida legislature effectively overruled Turner when it amended § 440.11(1), Florida Statutes. The amendment codifies the intentional tort exception recognized by Turner; however, the legislature mandated that a plaintiff-employee prove the existence of the intentional tort exception by "clear and convincing evidence." Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1)(b) (2003)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...This appeal requires us to construe apparently conflicting provisions of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law and Florida's Motor Vehicle No-fault Law. Stated succinctly, the central question is, does the exclusivity provision of the Compensation Act, section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1983), prohibit the reimbursement of personal injury protection benefits pursuant to section
627.7405, Florida Statutes (1983), from an employer who has paid out full workmen's compensation benefits....
...ation Act and that since appellant had paid full compensation benefits to Thomas it was not liable for any additional payment. Appellee subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court. This appeal timely ensued. Section 440.11 reads in pertinent part as follows: 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
...It does not affect rights which are not within the purview of the act or which by necessary implication or negation are excluded therefrom. Grice v. Suwanee Lumber Manufacturing,
113 So.2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); see also Salkay v. Deuschle,
385 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Having examined section
440.11, as well as the other provisions of the Act, it is clear to us the exclusivity provision only immunizes the employer against tort liability arising from the employee's job-related injury....
...paid as a result of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Because the obligation of reimbursement is a liability totally distinct from an employer's liability in tort, it does no violence whatsoever to the exclusivity principle embodied in section 440.11....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...ts, 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.
440.11, F.S.A....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19422
...Further, there can be no distinction between the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act and the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, for the intended purpose of each is the same. More importantly, both provide that the respective Act's compensation remedy is "exclusive." [ Compare 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) with § 440.11, Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Caruso of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D'Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for appellees. DREW, E. HARRIS, (Ret.), Associate Judge. The question presented for decision here is whether a Workmen's Compensation Carrier has the immunity of its insured employer against a common law action by an employee under Section 440.11, F.S.A....
...ompensation carrier when it is also charged with the responsibility of making safety inspections. Even though the Legislature [subsequent to the decision in Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., supra, and subsequent to the accident in this case] amended § 440.11 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to make *23 it clear that a carrier would not be liable in these circumstances, we do not find that the enactment of this statute created an additional immunity to the carrier but merely clarified what already had been held to be the law in Allen v....
...by subsequent amendments. The great weight of authority supports the views we and our sister District Courts have reached. The additional question, viz, whether the granting of immunity to workmen compensation insurance carriers by the enactment of Section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., conforms to the requirements of the Florida Constitution requires little discussion....
...on in Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corporation (1964) 31 Ill.2d 69, 199 N.E.2d 769. 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....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...the Florida
Wrongful Death Act.” Count II of the amended complaint asserted
a “Cause of Action for Wrongful Death Damages Against
[Appellant] Arising From Criminal Acts Exception to Worker’s
Compensation Employer/Manager Immunity Provided in Section
440.11(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes.” Appellee’s amended complaint
alleged that the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970
requires elevator owners to have their technicians disable
elevators using “lockout” or “tagout” procedures...
...The sole cause of action against Appellant is a claim for
“Wrongful Death Damages Against [Appellant] Arising From
8
Criminal Acts Exception to Workers’ Compensation
Employer/Manager Immunity provided in Section 440.11(1)(b)2,
Florida Statutes.” Section 440.11(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides
that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy in place of all
other liability, except as follows:
(b) When an employer commits an intentional tort that
causes the injury or death of the employee....
...Santamaria,
161 So. 3d at 531.
Appellee argues that its amended complaint alleged conduct
by Appellant that amounted to a first-degree misdemeanor,
thereby removing workers’ compensation exclusivity as to
9
Appellant. See §
440.11(1)(b), Fla. Stat. However, section
440.11(1)(b) does not declare that criminal conduct by a corporate
officer constitutes an intentional tort; it only states that such
conduct, if amounting to a first-degree misdemeanor, removes the
immunities provided by the workers’ compensation statute....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2044
...lement practices. The action may be brought by an injured third party claimant where the insurer's liability for the injury has been established. See Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.3d 880, 153 Cal. Rptr. 842, 592 P.2d 329 (1979). But section 440.11(3), Florida Statutes (1985), is reasonably clear on the point that the statute is inapplicable to workers' compensation cases: Notwithstanding the provisions of s....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1058, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2172, 1989 WL 41192
...Howard Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and shortly thereafter appellees Kern-Affholder, Incorporated and Affholder, Incorporated filed a separate motion to dismiss. Appellees all claimed that the complaint should be dismissed as to them because appellees were entitled to immunity from suit pursuant to section 440.11 of the Workers' Compensation Act....
...ot properly go beyond the four corners of the complaint in testing the legal sufficiency of the allegations set forth therein. Reed v. Sampson,
349 So.2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). It is equally well settled that the exclusivity provision set forth in section
440.11 of the Workers' Compensation Act is an affirmative defense which cannot be raised by a motion to dismiss unless the allegations of a prior pleading in the case demonstrate the existence of such a defense....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...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....
...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." 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 par...
...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. Stat., F.S.A. After considering the two statutes, which are a portion of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the opinion states: "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....
...s 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....
...1954,
72 So.2d 285, the injured employee of one independent contractor, sued Florida Power, the project owner, for the alleged negligence of an employee of another independent contractor. The Supreme Court held that the Workmen's Compensation Act, Section
440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14394, 2009 WL 3047381
...Kurt Schroeder and Linda Schroeder appeal a final summary judgment in their negligence action against Peoplease Corporation (Peoplease) and L & S Logistics Services, Inc. (L & S), appellees. The trial court granted summary judgment based upon workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), and expressly ruled that Peoplease *1166 and L & S were not estopped from asserting the defense of workers' compensation immunity....
...On January 8, 2007, the Schroeders filed a civil action against Peoplease and L & S. Relying upon the notice of denial, they alleged that neither Peoplease nor L & S could claim workers' compensation immunity from suit pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See § 440.11(1)(a), Fla....
...In Kent, the court held that, where the employer's denial of coverage was based upon the fact that the employee's medical condition was preexisting and unrelated to his current employment, the employer was not estopped from asserting immunity from suit pursuant to the exclusivity provision of section 440.11....
...Whether estoppel is appropriate in this case and whether the employer took irreconcilable positions is dependent upon the meaning to be accorded the notice of denial. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. HAWKES, C.J., and BROWNING, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 440.11(1) provides: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...perator and the owners of a crane that was engaged in loading scrap for Allen's employer, American Scrap Metal Company, Inc. At issue is whether defendants are immune from tort liability under Florida's workmen's compensation law as it then existed, Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1971)....
...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. Section
440.11 made their liability for benefits "exclusive and in place of all other liability." An exact classification of Joseph's role on the job is unnecessary to the determination of his eligibility for immunity under the act....
...Here there was no lease, so the crane was not "equivalent" to one owned by American. Smith v. Ryder Truck Rentals, Inc.,
182 So.2d at 424. Neither Joseph individually nor Joseph and his partner, as owners of the crane, are immune from Allen's suit by reason of Section
440.11....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13272, 2015 WL 5158490
...ility is exclusive, and
therefore, the employer is immune from other claims by injured employees, unless
the employer failed to secure payment of the statutory benefits or unless the
employer commits an intentional tort as defined in the statute. § 440.11 (1), Fla.
Stat....
...An employee, the statute provides, is entitled to the same immunity as
the employer unless (1) the employee acts with willful and wanton disregard,
unprovoked physical aggression, or gross negligence, or (2) the employee and the
injured employee “are assigned primarily to unrelated works.” 440.11 (1)(b)2....
...(emphasis added).
The unrelated works language highlighted above is specifically contained in
the provision dealing with immunity for employees and, as such, applies only to
employees. Vallejos v. Lan Cargo S.A.,
116 So. 3d 545, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
(holding the “unrelated works” exception found in section
440.11(1)(b)(2) applies
only to fellow-employees); Taylor v....
...iable for the
payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor
8
or the contractor on such contract work and is protected by the
exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 from any action at
law or in admiralty on account of injury to an employee of another
subcontractor, or of the contractor, provided that:
1....
... 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....
...on the issues raised in the pleadings.” Fla. Bar v. Greene,
926 So. 2d 1195, 1200
(Fla. 2006). At both the trial and appellate level, all evidence and inferences from
the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
440.11(1)).
Also, cases suggesting that such vicarious liability is available were either decided
under the statute before it was amended in 2003, Wright v....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 301834
...In other words, it is the fact of liability that renders United immune from suit under chapter 440, not the fact that its carrier did not actually pay Daniel's worker's compensation benefits. As this court explained the functioning of sections
440.10 and
440.11 in Abernathy v....
...In addition, when these contractors sublet work, they must also secure compensation for the subcontractor's employees unless the subcontractor has already so provided. This makes the contractor who sublets work the statutory employer of all employees of its subcontractors working on a particular project. Section 440.11(1) makes this liability to secure compensation the exclusive form of liability of the employer....
...*1245 1981) ("It is the liability to secure coverage for such employees in the event the subcontractor does not do so that immunizes a contractor from suit by such employees"). Affirmed. DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur. NOTES [1] The relevant portions of sections
440.10 and
440.11 in the 1989 Florida Statutes are the same as those in the 1979 Florida Statutes.
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Carpentry provides labor for construction projects. Appellant Noel contends that the trial court erred in directing verdicts in favor of Ecker and Carpentry. We affirm the directing of a verdict in favor of Carpentry, based on its statutory immunity from suit under § 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 341998
...ployment." Sch. Bd. of Broward County v. Victorin,
767 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied,
786 So.2d 581 (Fla.2001). The act further provides that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy, save for some legislatively created exceptions. §
440.11, Fla. Stat. (1997). Section
440.11(1) states: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1043131
...Nurse Finders, a temporary employment agency, placed Watson with Job Corp. to work as a nurse. Watson was later injured while on the job at Job Corp. and sued Job Corp. for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in Job Corp.'s favor, finding that Job Corp. was entitled to workers' compensation immunity. Section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2002), extends an employer's immunity from tort liability to work related injuries of employees obtained through a help supply services company and also applies to companies that hire workers through temporary employment agencies....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1207675
..., John Doe, was a borrowed servant of the general contractor, because, she contends, genuine fact issues remained as to the nature of the work done and the control that J.A. Jones asserted over day laborers such as Doe. Folds overlooks the fact that section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1997), effectually creates a rebuttable presumption that a special employer using the services of a temporary employment agency, such as Pacesetters, becomes the statutory employer of the borrowed servant....
...Finally, Larson observes that the entire question of which of the two, the general or special employer, should be considered the employer of the temporarily assigned worker at the time of injury has been addressed in some jurisdictions by statute, and he specifically notes section 440.11(2), which he characterizes as "mandat[ing] that employees from `help supply companies' shall be treated as employees of the employer to whom they have been sent to work." Id....
...Jones' actions in supervising Doe, which resulted in her injuries, were tantamount to gross negligence; therefore, the trial court erroneously entered summary judgment for J.A. Jones. We cannot agree. Three exceptions are recognized to the bar of immunity provided in section 440.11....
...Second, an injured employee may sue a managerial-level employee, such as a partner, officer or director, or supervisor, for acts constituting culpable negligence, which is defined as reckless indifference or grossly careless disregard of human life. § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3015685, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9626
...Martin Elecs., Inc.,
932 So.2d 1100, 1104 (Fla.2006) (emphasis added). “Where an injury is suffered in the course and scope of employment, worker’s compensation is the exclusive remedy for recovery against the employer.” Wishart,
573 So.2d at 184 (citing Fla. Stat. §
440.11 )....
...s a matter of law, and taking the facts in the light most favorable to Vallejos, he cannot prove that Infinity was grossly negligent or that Lan committed an intentional tort. II. The “gross negligence” and “unrelated works” exceptions under section 440.11(l)(b)(2) do not apply because Vallejos did not sue Robaina, the fellow-employee, and any negligence on the part of Robaina is not imputed to Lan or Infinity. The “gross negligence” and “unrelated works” exceptions found in section 440.11(l)(b)(2) are inapplicable to Vallejos’ suit as a matter of law because the statute expressly states that the exceptions apply only to fellow-employees....
...Case law does not support Vallejos’ argument that modifying a piece of machinery in such a way as to increase its dangerousness always amounts to gross negligence. For example, in Kline,
652 So.2d at 965 , the plaintiff sued her supervisor for gross negligence under a different subsection of the statute. See Fla. Stat. §
440.11 (1)(b)(2) (excluding from immunity supervisors who are grossly negligent in the course of his or her managerial duties)....
...We held that “although the corporate defendant was certainly negligent in its cavalier attitude toward the safety of its employees,” the allegations were not sufficient to meet the standard of gross negligence. Id. at 965-66 . In Merryman v. Mattheus,
529 So.2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), another case that dealt with section
440.11(1)(b)(2), the plaintiff, the crane operator, was killed when a load of steel dropped on him after the crane’s cable broke....
...employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. Fla. Stat. § 440.11 (1)(b). Vallejos did not present clear and convincing evidence that Lan engaged in conduct that it knew was virtually certain to result in injury. This standard is very hard to meet because liability under section 440.11 “was intended to be the rarest of exceptions to the immunity granted to the employer.” List Indus....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 14, 1994 WL 1899
...Taos Construction Inc.,
605 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1992) (a claimant who claims and receives workers' compensation benefits will be found to have elected such compensation as an exclusive remedy where there is evidence of a conscious choice of remedies). We do not find these cases controlling. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that workers' compensation is not a claimant's exclusive remedy as to liability of a fellow employee "when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment" (emphasis added). Thus, any claimant may bring a civil action against a fellow employee where it is shown that the two were engaged in unrelated works. The effect of section
440.11(1) when the claimant is a public employee is to open the governmental employer to civil liability in addition to its worker's compensation obligations....
...Thus, it is not inconsistent for Duffell, a public employee, both to accept workers' compensation benefits, and to seek relief in a civil suit. By taking the latter action, he is simply asserting a right afforded to all employees by the Legislature, pursuant to section 440.11(1)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 29236
...The doctrine of lent employment reflects the dual purpose of ensuring that a lent employee is covered by workers' compensation and immunizing employers attaining "special employer" status from liability in tort. In Florida, the doctrine's specific application to employee leasing arrangements is embodied in section 440.11(2), which provides, in pertinent part: [I]mmunity from liability [other than for workers' compensation] shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which utilizes the services of the employees of a help supply serv...
...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. §
440.11(2) Fla....
...the borrowed employees. Accordingly, special employers are immune from tort liability and are responsible for providing workers' compensation benefits, unless such benefits are provided by the employee leasing company. The seeming disparity between section
440.11(2) (conferring special employer status to companies borrowing employees from employee leasing companies) and section
468.529(1) (conferring employer status to employee leasing companies) is not irreconcilable....
...Claimant then brought an action in tort against Maxson. The court held that under section
468.529, claimant was an employee of the employee leasing company for workers' compensation purposes. In addition, the court held that Maxson was immune from tort liability under section
440.11(2), because, through the employee leasing arrangement, "the purpose of the workers' compensation law was served in accordance with statutory requirements, and [claimant was] not entitled to a second bite at the apple by suing Maxson in tort." Id....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 20528
...mployer is immune from suit for the employee'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....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 166, 2004 WL 57258
...First, the court pointed to section
468.529(1), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides that a licensed leasing company is the employer of the leased employees. Second, the court held that Maxson's use of an employee leasing service entitled it to workers' compensation immunity pursuant to section
440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1995). Id. at 589-90. Section
440.11(2) provides in part that workers' compensation immunity shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which utilizes *940 the services of the employees of a help supply services company, as set forth in Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363.......
...AMA, the licensed staff leasing company involved in Welch, obviously met that definition. But in this case the record contained nothing to suggest that Columbia was "primarily" engaged in supplying help on a contract or fee basis. For this reason, section 440.11(2) does not support Tandem's summary judgment, and Welch does not control this case....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 15241
...at falls within the broad spectrum of the Workers' Compensation Act. Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec. Inc.,
552 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 1989); Stack v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
507 So.2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied,
515 So.2d 230 (Fla. 1987); §
440.11, Fla....
...the workers' compensation board and filed instead a negligence action in circuit court, the employer raised the affirmative defense that workers' compensation insurance was, in fact, in effect at the time of injury and thus the action was barred by section 440.11....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 1355, 2010 WL 445729
...Accordingly, because Coastal asserted irreconcilable positions as to whether Gutierrez's injury occurred in the course and scope of his employment, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Affirmed. NOTES [1] Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), we have jurisdiction. [2] See § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 23252
...t. Timones received workers' compensation benefits due to the accident. We agree that Timones' complaint fails to allege ultimate facts demonstrating an intentional tort which falls outside the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...According to Timones' complaint, at least 48 employees have been injured as a result of operation of this unsafe machinery, and that it was "substantially certain" that employees such as Timones would be injured. To state a cause of action for intentional tort sufficient to avoid section 440.11, immunizing employers from tort liability for employee injuries, the employee must allege ultimate facts demonstrating that the employer either exhibited a deliberate intent to injure or engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury or death....
...d that the trial court properly granted summary final judgment. I must respectfully disagree, however, with the indication in the majority opinion that Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co.,
498 So.2d 882 (Fla. 1986), stands for the proposition that section
440.11(1) may be avoided where an employer has committed an intentional tort. It appears to me from my reading of both Fisher and another case decided on the same day, Lawton v. Alpine Engineered Products, Inc.,
498 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1986), that the supreme court specifically declined to decide whether section
440.11(1) precludes an action by an employee against an employer for an intentional tort.
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16528, 1999 WL 1111750
PER CURIAM. As appellee properly concedes, the trial court erred in ruling that the City of Miami Beach was entitled to summary judgment based on the immunity provided by section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1995)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 20353, 2008 WL 5411973
...jury. BFI filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that at the time of the accident Zeeuw was employed by Spartan Staffing and was BFI's "borrowed employee" under the workers' compensation statutes involving help supply services companies. See § 440.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). Therefore, BFI contended, it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity. See § 440.11....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 379823
...Henry Folk was employed by Rite Aid as a security guard. He was shot while performing his duties in a Rite Aid store after he sprayed MACE in the face of the perpetrator of an armed robbery. The Florida Worker's Compensation Law, by the provisions in section 440.11, Florida Statutes, immunizes employers from tort liability for employee injuries other than those inflicted by an intentional tort....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...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)....
...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
440.11 provides that the liability of an employer prescribed in Section
440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability....
...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....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...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)....
...Both corporations are subsidiaries of General Builders Corporation. Sisk's personal representative filed suit against the two sister corporations, General Builders and Cedar Lane. General Builders obtained a summary judgment by arguing that it was a contractor and, therefore, entitled to tort immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....
...s 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)....
...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)....
...GLICKSTEIN, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur. 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....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 502093
...PS's behavior was substantially certain to result in injury or death. UPS filed an answer and raised the affirmative defense of worker's compensation immunity, arguing that compensation under the Act was Welsh's exclusive remedy. See §§
440.09(1),
440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1991). UPS also filed a motion for summary judgment based upon this affirmative defense. The trial court denied the motion, and UPS appealed. Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1991), is the exclusive remedy for a worker's injury or death which occurs during the course and scope of the worker's employment....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 2135841
...Thus, while remedial legislation is generally interpreted liberally in favor of the errors to be corrected, the Legislature has specifically rejected such an interpretation for the workers' compensation law. These principles must be kept in mind as we examine this case. Criminal Acts Exception Section 440.11(1) provides the employer with immunity from civil suit by the worker if the employer complies with the provisions of the workers' compensation law and secures compensation for its employees....
...course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties and was not a violation of a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days' imprisonment as set forth in s.
775.082. §
440.11(1), Fla....
...If concealment were necessary, then an employer could expose an employee to the most extreme of hazardous circumstances and escape tort liability so long as the hazard was not concealed. NOTES [1] In 2003, the Florida Legislature effectively overruled Turner when it amended section 440.11 to codify the intentional tort exception recognized by Turner by mandating that the plaintiff/employee prove the intentional tort exception by clear and convincing evidence....
...rd with the "virtually certain" standard and required that "the employer knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee." See § 440.11(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1948
...The undisputed issues of fact before the trial court fully supported its finding that Obrenovic was an employee of ABDM & P, and that any cause of action against that defendant was restricted to those permitted under the workers' compensation laws. Cf. § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 234, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 762, 1992 WL 68953
...Sibley's complaint charged that such acts were intentional misconduct and not negligent conduct protected by chapter 440, Florida Statutes (1989). The insurance carrier moved to dismiss the action and the trial court granted the insurance carrier's motion, concluding that section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1989), provided the carrier with immunity from liability. On appeal, the district court affirmed but did not rest its affirmance upon section 440.11....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 113630
...were of a nature so substantially certain to result in injury that these acts amounted to gross negligence." FDOT further asserted: As plaintiff's injuries were the direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of Whitehurst, Whitehurst is not immune from an action for contribution under Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, providing for the exclusive liability of an employer to an employee....
...ciently expresses the parties' contemplation of indemnity *105 in instances of loss caused by other than FDOT's sole negligence. FDOT contends that the court may have based the dismissal on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. § 440.11(1), Florida Statutes. As FDOT correctly points out, section 440.11(1) is unconstitutional when applied to absolutely bar a third party tortfeasor's claim for indemnification from an employer who paid workers' compensation benefits to his employee....
...The complaint failed to allege all of the elements required for a cause of action for contribution. To support an action for contribution, the pleading must adequately allege common liability. §
768.31(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). Such a common liability cannot exist where the employer is immunized under section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 321277
...the machine to move forward. The machine struck the plaintiff's foot, crushing it. Plaintiff brought suit against Resol under the intentional tort exception to the workers compensation immunity. See Turner v. PCR Inc.,
754 So.2d 683, 686 (Fla.2000); §
440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 199600
...e loss benefits. The underlying civil action seeks damages from ACT and various third parties for gross negligence and culpable negligence. ACT filed a motion for summary judgment claiming worker's compensation immunity from civil action pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1995)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ds were kept of nonwork-related complaints. Appellant Ann Akins as above stated had litigated this same claim against Hudson in an action before the Industrial Relations Commission under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, the Workmen's Compensation Law. § 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: "The liability of an employer ......
...tion, she returned to her employment after visiting the first aid station. This matter was litigated before the Judge of Industrial Claims and was adjudicated against her contention. No review of the judge's order was sought and it has become final. Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, and estoppel by judgment apply to bar this suit....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 549365
...Harry D. Phiel and Beatrice Phiel to recover damages for injuries suffered by Mr. Phiel in the course of his employment by Gustafson's. Gustafson's motion sought summary judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that the dairy was immune from suit under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989)....
...We certify conflict with Breakers Palm Beach, supra, and City of Lake Mary, supra . III. Turning to the merits of the instant case, even if all facts are interpreted most favorably to the Phiels, we conclude that the dairy is entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law. Under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1993), an employer who properly secures workers' compensation coverage for its employees is provided with immunity from suit "so long as the employer has not engaged in any intentional act designed to result in or th...
...Const. Co.,
498 So.2d 882, 884 (Fla.1986). Here, if all facts and inferences are resolved in favor of the Phiels, it is clear that there is no evidence the dairy committed an intentional tort sufficient to allow the Phiels to avoid the provisions of section
440.11....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2067
...ing them thus to drive heavy over-the-road trucks under extremely dangerous circumstances. All defendants filed motions to dismiss on the premise that since Stanlick acknowledged that he had collected workers' compensation benefits, he was barred by section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981), from bringing this suit for his injuries....
...plaintiffs with an exclusive remedy against the Kaplans. Winn-Lovett Tampa, Inc. v. Murphree,
73 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1954); Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Whitworth,
442 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). It is undisputed that prior to the 1978 amendment of section
440.11(1), while an employee who was injured on the job could not sue his employer, he did have a right to sue a coemployee for negligence in causing his injuries....
...ate that before recovery is permitted, there must be both an affirmative act of negligence and one which is outside the scope of the employer's duty to provide a safe place to work. The second point urged by respondents is more troublesome. In 1978, section 440.11 was amended by the addition of the following language: The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 743599
...d servant doctrine," declaring a presumption in favor of the continuance of the general employment. Only if General Crane could overcome the presumption and prove that Teslia was a borrowed servant, would it enjoy immunity from liability pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 502307
...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....
...The trial court granted summary judgment as to all defendants except Wright. This was error. Whenever disability or death results from an injury obtained during the course of employment, compensation under the Florida Workers' Compensation Act is the injured employee's exclusive remedy. § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). Section 440.11(1) grants immunity from suit to all employers and their employees, acting in the scope of employment, for simple negligence. Employees who act with "willful and wanton disregard" or with gross negligence toward a fellow employee are not immune from suit. § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). If a subcontractor provides workers' compensation benefits to its injured employee, workers' compensation immunity would not only apply to the subcontractor, but to the general contractor as well. § 440.11(1)(b), 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. Section 440.11 states in part: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 259786
...property owner whom Hogan sued in negligence for injuries he sustained while working on a remodeling project on the property. The trial court held that the property owner was Hogan's statutory employer and entitled to immunity from suit pursuant to section 440.11 of the Workers' Compensation Act....
...s 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. Section
440.11 provides that the liability of an employer for workers' compensation is in lieu of any other liability to the employee and 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....
...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. 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
...More importantly, because Deerfield 21 was not a contractor or the employer of Hogan, and did not otherwise have any statutory duty to provide workers' compensation coverage, Deerfield was not the statutory employer of Hogan, and does not enjoy the immunity provided by section 440.11 from Hogan's tort suit....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1992 WL 275884
...One month later, Martin assigned to Oppenheim any rights he might have against Reliance. The Assignment of Claims and Causes of Action (Assignment of Claims) stated that it was based on and arose out of the Settlement Agreement. II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Exception to Workers' Compensation Immunity from Suit Section 440.11 of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law provides that an employer's liability under workers' compensation shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer. Fla.Stat. § 440.11(1) (1989 & Supp. II 1990). Thus, because Oppenheim, as an employee, may recover under workers' compensation, he *307 may not sue Dal Mar, as his employer, under its insurance plan. Under Section 440.11, employees, acting in furtherance of their employer's business, can usually claim the same immunity from suit that their employers can claim....
...§
440.02(13)(b) (1989 & West Supp. II 1990) (defining `employee' as "any person who is an officer of a corporation and who performs services for remuneration for such corporation."). In Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268, 270 (Fla.1987), the Florida Supreme Court held that section
440.11 permits suits against corporate employees, officers, executives and supervisors as `employees' for acts of gross negligence in failing to provide a reasonably safe place in which other employees may work....
...le under any ... workers' compensation ... benefits law." Because Oppenheim recovered from Dal Mar under workers' compensation, Oppenheim could not recover from Dal Mar under it's policy with Reliance, based on the exclusive recovery provision under section 440.11 and the express terms of the policy....
...employee of the same employer arising out of or in the course of his employment. Because Oppenheim claimed that Martin was a fellow employee in order to place Martin outside the protections of the workers' compensation immunity provision, Fla. Stat. § 440.11, Oppenheim thereby also placed Martin outside coverage of the primary insurance policy, under the fellow employee exception....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19944, 2006 WL 3422355
...Marshall"), appeals a final order dismissing with prejudice Counts I-VI of his first amended complaint against the defendant, Amerisys, Inc. ("Amerisys"), based upon the trial court's conclusion that Amerisys is immune from liability pursuant to Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, found in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2004)....
...rges against Mr. Marshall for the statements he made to Ms. Wilson concerning "making bombs and silencers." [2] Mr. Marshall alleges that because Amerisys is a "managed care arranger," it cannot avail itself of the statutory immunity available under section 440.11, Florida Statutes, as this statutory immunity only applies to employers, employees, and insurance carriers....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 17572, 2008 WL 4922600
...Pavement, relying on Pendergrass v. R.D. Michaels, Inc.,
936 So.2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that the criminal acts exception to the workers' compensation laws did not apply to this corporate defendant. See §
440.11(1) Fla. Stat. (2002) (excepting from immunity two groups of individuals immunized by section
440.11(1) along with employers: (1) fellow employees who act "with willful or wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence;" and, (2) sole proprietors, partners, officers, directors, and managing agents whose acts constitute a violation of law carrying a jail term of sixty days or longer)....
...In exchange, employers who comply with the workers' compensation act receive immunity from suit except in limited circumstances. Id. at 262. One such exception from workers' compensation immunity, as T.J. Pavement correctly argues, is the criminal acts exception recognized in section 440.11(1) of the Florida Statutes. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...[3] We cite to and apply this version of the workers' compensation law because it was in effect at the time of Acosta's death. See Bakerman,
961 So.2d at 262 n. 3. [4] We employ the "substantial certainty" standard because Acosta was killed in July 2003 before section
440.11 of the Florida Statutes was amended to replace the substantial certainty standard with the virtually certain standard, and because this amendment does not apply retroactively. See §
440.11(1)(b), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2435, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10716
...from the owner or operator of the other vehicle. Allstate's position was that since the appellee and the operator of the uninsured motor vehicle were co-employees, suit was barred under the co-employee provision of the Workers' Compensation Statute, Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979), unless an exception to that statute was first established in the trial court....
...' Compensation Act. By way of supplemental briefs in this case, the appellee has argued that, notwithstanding the holding of the supreme court, he is still entitled to arbitration of the claim, because Workers' Compensation immunity is not absolute. Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979), provides exceptions to the immunity rule where the co-employee acts with willful and wanton disregard, unprovoked physical aggression, gross negligence, or when the two employees are assigned primarily to unrelated works....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 2038790
...Montiel did not claim further benefits under the workers' compensation statute. See §
440.192. Instead, he sued Coca-Cola and Kash N' Karry for negligence, alleging that improper shelving design caused his injury. Coca-Cola sought summary judgment based on workers' compensation exclusivity. See §
440.11(1)....
...lusivity defense of the workers' compensation statute. Reversed. CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] Throughout their briefs, the parties speak of workers' compensation immunity. More precisely, Coca-Cola's defense is one of exclusivity. See § 440.11(1), Fla....
...[2] The statute immunizes an employer from further liability for an employee's workplace injury unless either of two exceptions applies: (1) if an employer fails to secure workers' compensation coverage, or (2) when an employer commits an intentional tort. See § 440.11(1)(a)-(b)....
...Martin Electronics, Inc.,
932 So.2d 1100 (Fla.2006), Turner v. PCR, Inc.,
754 So.2d 683 (Fla.2000), and Wheeled Coach Industries, Inc. v. Annulis,
852 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), is misplaced. Such cases involved suit for intentional torts, an exception to workers' compensation exclusivity defense. See §
440.11(1)(b)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...for its ruling. Section
440.09(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides workers' compensation coverage "in respect of disability or death of an employee if the disability or death results from an injury arising out of and in the course of employment." Section
440.11(1) provides that the employer's liability for such workers' compensation "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer ......
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3206, 2001 WL 245757
...he dangerous instrumentality doctrine transforms them into insurers of such family lawsuits. Although the policies supporting family immunity are different from those supporting workers' compensation immunity, a brief comparison is warranted. "Under Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1995), an owner of a dangerous instrumentality now enjoys the same limited liability or immunity from a tort action as the employer of an employee injured by the instrumentality where it is leased to, and under the control of, the employer." Clements v. Wildlife Conservation Soc'y,
750 So.2d 715, 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see also Halifax Paving, Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Constr., Inc.,
565 So.2d 1346 (Fla.1990). Before section
440.11 extended immunity to the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, the supreme court allowed the owner *623 to obtain indemnity from the immune employer....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 652
...SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section
440.49(1), Florida Statutes (1981), provides workers' compensation coverage "in respect of disability or death of an employee if the disability or death results from an injury arising out of and in the course of employment." Section
440.11(1) provides that the employer's liability for such workers' compensation "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer ......
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...Benson's temporary total disability benefits and demanded that he do a "job search" in order to receive his monies. The lower court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss on twin grounds: first, that in light of Sibley v. Adjustco,
596 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1992), section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1993) does not provide immunity for such a claim; second, that the complaint stated a cause of action for the tort of "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress." Petitioner seeks prohibition on the basis of sever...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 86735
...Larry Sands of Sands, White & Sands, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellee Scott Goldy. PER CURIAM. Integrity Homes of Central Florida, Inc. appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment in which it contended that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 8855, 2007 WL 1610210
...ct to be determined by it." Moore v. Morris,
475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985). On appeal, the Association argues that there are genuine issues of material fact remaining as to whether the Association is entitled to workers' compensation immunity under section
440.11(2), Florida Statutes, or under the common law "borrowed servant" doctrine. We agree. Section
440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that workers' compensation immunity: shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which utilizes the services of the employees of a help supply services company, as set forth in...
...no direct contractual relationship between the Association, which asserted worker's compensation immunity, and ADP Total Source. Instead, Advantage became an intermediary, which in turn contracted with ADP Total Source. The trial court reasoned that section 440.11(2) would not apply to the Association because Advantage was acting as a "middleman." We acknowledge that in each of the cases holding that an employer was entitled to immunity under section 440.11(2), there appears to have been a direct contractual relationship between the defendant and the help supply services company....
...ontrol at the time he was injured."); see also Caramico v. Artcraft Indus., Inc.,
727 So.2d 348, 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Maxson Constr. Co. v. Welch,
720 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, we disagree with the trial court's conclusion that section
440.11(2) could not, as a matter of law, apply to these facts. Unpacking the standard in section
440.11(2), the employer must 1) utilize the services, 2) of an employee of a help services supply company, 3) acting in furtherance of the employer's business....
...Under this view of the evidence, the Association utilized the services of an employee of a help services company in furtherance of the Association's business. Consequently, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Morelli was the Association's *1286 borrowed employee under section 440.11(2). Apart from section 440.11(2), there is also a genuine issue of fact as to whether Morelli was the Association's "borrowed servant" under the common law....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 4534, 1990 WL 85449
...in investigating or prosecuting a possible claim against a third-party tortfeasor. [2] Both a fellow employee and an employer, may, under appropriate circumstances, be considered third-party tortfeasors. Notwithstanding the exclusivity provisions of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1989), precluding an employer from any other liability to the employee in the event that the employer has secured payment of compensation as required by chapter 440, case law permits an employee or his or her represe...
...ury or the death of the employee. See, e.g., Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co.,
498 So.2d 882 (Fla. 1986); Lawton v. Alpine Engineered Prods., Inc.,
498 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1986); Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking Corp.,
558 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Section
440.11(1) also expressly states that fellow employees are not accorded immunity from liability in tort in the event that they act "with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence" in regard to another employee....
...The fellow-employee statutory exception from immunity has been interpreted to apply as well to actions against a corporate employer's officers, executives, and supervisors. See Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1987). [3] Similarly, *1123 the exclusivity provisions of section
440.11 will not bar tort claims against an employer alleging assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or battery arising from sexual harassment....
...al rule 26 in the federal sector. See Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495, 507-508,
67 S.Ct. 385, 392,
91 L.Ed. 451, 460 (1947). [3] In 1988, however, the legislature, in what appears to be an attempt to repeal the Streeter v. Sullivan decision, amended section
440.11(1) by extending the same immunity provisions granted the employer to sole proprietors, partners, corporate officers or directors, supervisors, or other persons who, in the course and scope of their duties, act in a managerial or policy...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 73925
...In Streeter, the supreme court disapproved the earlier cases of Dessert v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company,
392 So.2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied,
399 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1981) and Kaplan v. Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit,
495 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and held that section §
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981), the same statute which is applicable here, unambiguously states the legislative intent to impose liability on all employees who act with gross negligence with respect to their fellow employees, regardless of the grossly negligent employee's corporate status....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15961, 1992 WL 145531
...od of time. As “new hires,” these individuals were given some training, but there is a serious question about its adequacy and what was in fact covered. Eastern Airlines was immune from suit pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act, Fla.Stat. § 440.11....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 786752
...The Legislature has created an exception to that immunity: "fellow employee immunities shall not be applicable ... to employees of the same employer when each is operating in furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment." § 440.11, Fla....
...s entities that operated other funeral homes and cemeteries as well, the unrelated works exception may apply and reversing summary judgment for the defendants), rev. denied,
749 So.2d 504 (Fla.1999). AFFIRMED. COBB and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 2505
...faith or with a malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting a willful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety or property." §
768.28(9), Fla. Stat. (1995). Generally, the immunity afforded to workers from suits by co-employees is governed by section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1995), a portion of the Worker's Compensation Law....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 5313
...When the accident occurred, Enterprise's employees had seated the load on the hook and were directing the crane operator with hand signals. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that suit against KBH and Ward was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of section 440.11, Florida Statutes, the workers compensation statute....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18491
...More importantly, Nales has no applicability here. To allow appellant to sue her late husband's employer, IMC, after she has accepted compensation benefits would be contrary to the exclusiveness of remedy doctrine embodied in the workers' compensation law. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, states: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...958 (W.D.Pa. 1967); Stricklen v. Pearson Construction Co., 185 Iowa 95, 169 N.W. 628 (1918); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Stevenson, 212 Tenn. 178, 368 S.W.2d 760 (1963). Accordingly, we hold that the exclusiveness of remedy doctrine embodied in section 440.11(1) bars recovery by appellant against IMC for either compensatory or punitive damages....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2513, 1990 WL 21030
...Bushell and Wackenhut now move for summary judgment on various issues. Bushell seeks to obtain an order declaring that Florida law applies to this action and as a result, he is entitled to maintain a negligence action against Wackenhut pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 440.11....
...Following Florida conflict of laws rules, we are bound to apply Saudi Arabia law to this controversy. Accordingly, the Court denies Bushell's motion for partial summary judgment and grants summary judgment in favor of Wackenhut on Bushell's negligence claim brought pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 440.11....
...In return, the employer may deduct from the wages of the insured the contributions due from him every time he pays him his wages. Should the employer neglect to withhold the workmen's contribution upon payment of the wages, he may not withhold such contribution in any form whatsoever at any later date. [3] Florida Statutes Section 440.11 expressly provides that where an employer fails to obtain workers' compensation coverage, an injured employee may maintain an action at law for damages on account of such injury.
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2349, 2006 WL 398418
...loyee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work." Id. (quoting § 440.11(1)(b)(2), Fla....
...Stat. (2003)). Because the incident in this case occurred in 2000, the 2003 amendment, with its stricter standard, does not apply. See The Bombay Co., Inc. v. Bakerman,
891 So.2d 555, 556 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (confirming that the 2003 amendment to section
440.11(1)(b)(2) does not apply to events which precede that amendment), review granted,
903 So.2d 189 (Fla.2005)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3498592
...See §
440.10(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1999) (providing that 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)....
...[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)....
...Further, the evidence concerning the roles of Chosen Sound and Backstage in directing Biggins's work gives rise to conflicting inferences, which precludes summary judgment. See Smith,
576 So.2d at 815-16. Help Supply Services Company Chosen Sound argues that because Backstage is a "help supply services company" under section
440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1999), then Chosen Sound is entitled to workers' compensation immunity under section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1999), without regard for the three-part borrowed servant analysis. See, e.g., Derogatis,
892 So.2d at 1081 (citing §
440.11(2), Fla....
...(2000); Horn,
862 So.2d at 939-40; Sagarino,
644 So.2d at 165) (advising that "[a] special employer may be immune from suit on the basis of the common law special employment relationship that is premised on the borrowed-employee doctrine or on the basis of the statutory special employment relationship"). Section
440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: The immunity from liability described in subsection (1) shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which utilizes the services of the employees of a help supply services comp...
...or general supervision of the business to whom the help is furnished," the case law suggests that Backstage does not meet the definition of a help supply services company, on the facts of this case. Each of the cases cited by Chosen Sound interprets section 440.11(2) to apply to companies hiring workers through temporary employment agencies or employee leasing companies....
...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....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...erests in the event they sustain injuries such as occurred in these cases, and they have been free to pursue those contractual rights, either by the stipulated grievance procedure, arbitration, or by civil action in a court of law. The provisions of section 440.11 granting employers immunity from suit are not applicable to bar suit by these players against the Miami Dolphins....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 211756
...Respondents agree, but contend that the trial court does not lack jurisdiction. A circuit court is without jurisdiction over an action against a compensation carrier for injuries covered by the Workers' Compensation Act. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Whitworth,
442 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Section
440.11(4), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that "the liability of a carrier to an employee or to anyone entitled to bring suit in the name of the employee shall be as provided in this chapter, which shall be exclusive and in place of all ot...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2884505
...ervisors, Ritz *346 and Barcinas. He alleged that because Ritz and Barcinas had committed a crime (i.e., participating in the theft of the backhoe) that caused his son's death, they were not entitled to worker's compensation immunity as set forth in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...The relationship between the unlawful act committed (petty theft) and the result effected (death by heart attack during pursuit in an automobile) does not meet the test of causation historically or currently required in Florida for conviction of manslaughter. Todd,
594 So.2d at 806. Section
440.11 plainly states that supervisors will have the same immunity as an employer if the conduct which caused the employee's injury: 1) arose within the course and scope of the supervisor's duties, and 2) was not a violation of law. Given the legislature's intent to provide employers with broad immunity, [4] and the court's practices of preserving this immunity, [5] the "cause" described in section
440.11 can mean nothing other than "proximate" or "legal" cause....
...g reason). Affirmed. SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE, LEVY, GERSTEN, FLETCHER, SHEVIN, and SHEPHERD, JJ. Concur. GODERICH, Judge (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Contrary to the majority's en banc opinion, I believe that the "criminal acts" exception, § 440.11(1), Fla....
...ave arrested the perpetrators. I thus see no support in the statute or the case law for a distinction between cause-in-fact or proximate cause, nor do I see the need for such an analysis. The en banc majority also finds that the "cause" described in section 440.11(1) is proximate cause or legal cause....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 709364
...unity under what we understand at this point to be the facts and attempted claim for relief. As our opinion in Sullivan stated: "Sullivan also contends that he sufficiently alleged a cause of action against the insurer for intentionally harming him. Section 440.11(2) provides exceptions to the immunity granted in the case of certain willful assaults and automobile accidents....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...The cross-appeal of defendant Estate of Henry Lee Mills seeks reversal for the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence. It is urged that the evidence conclusively showed that the non-corporate defendant, Henry Lee Mills, was protected from liability by Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 2347728
...ompensation statute, avoids tort liability. Indeed, "[t]he liability of an employer ... 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. . . ." § 440.11(1)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6963, 2004 WL 758970
...ided Boynton, a case with underlying
facts very similar to those here. A Sears auto mechanic was struck by an automobile
being repaired by another mechanic. Sears was immune from suit under Florida’s
workmen’s compensation law, see Fla. Stat. § 440.11, and the claim against the
automobile’s lessor, Xerox, was dismissed under Castillo v....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5061, 2006 WL 932575
...Since the day of the accident, Bourassa has been receiving workers' compensation benefits from Busch Gardens. [1] In June 2003, Bourassa sued Busch Gardens seeking damages for her injuries. Busch Gardens raised workers' compensation immunity, pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2002), as an affirmative defense to Bourassa's action....
...aive all other rights). While there are disputed issues of material fact on this issue, this issue was not raised in the summary judgment motion or at the hearing and was not considered by the trial court. Thus, we do not address the issue here. [2] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2003 to change the standard for proving an intentional tort to one of a "virtual certainty" of injury....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...t for further proceedings. THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The complaint was amended to allege gross negligence against Moore in order to avoid the Workers' Compensation immunity from liability extended to Moore, as a fellow-employee, by section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 37449
...Beaver drove the Ryder truck and caused injury to Morales, his passenger and co-worker. Morales and his wife sued Ryder and its insurer for personal injuries and loss of consortium. Ryder answered and asserted, as an affirmative defense, that Morales's claim was barred by workers' compensation immunity. See generally § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 192881
...d committed no negligence, noting that the policy contained no specific exclusion to that effect). ISSUE ON CROSS-APPEAL Immunity The trial court determined that the workers' compensation act provides McKenzie *513 no immunity from Container's suit. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), in relevant part provides: "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...." The trial judge held that section
440.11(1) is "unconstitutional when applied to bar a third party tortfeasor from bringing an action for indemnification against an employer," citing L.M....
...cation was actively negligent, thus precluding indemnification against one who paid workers' compensation benefits to the injured party); and Sunspan Engineering & Construction Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co.,
310 So.2d 4 (Fla.1975) (holding that section
440.11(1) is unconstitutional as applied to bar a third-party tortfeasor's common law action for indemnification against a negligent employer who paid his injured employee workers' compensation benefits)....
...1st DCA 1993). We need not reach this question however because these cases are inapposite: neither involves contractual liability. McKenzie fails to acknowledge that Container is suing it for breach of contract, not for indemnification. Nothing in section
440.11(1) expressly provides or implies any immunity against an action for breach of contract. See Sunspan,
310 So.2d at 8 ("[o]ur holding does not directly touch upon whether [section]
440.11(1) precludes a third party tort-feasor from bringing an action for indemnification upon a contractual theory of liability")....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 48646
...The Byrd opinion suggests that in a proper case, a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace may pursue separate claims for qualitatively different injuries. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the appealed order in all respects. WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] The exclusivity rule, section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987), provides generally that workers' compensation is the sole remedy available to a worker injured within the scope and policies of the workers' compensation statute.
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2013 WL 1501654, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7469
...2d 683, 686 (Fla. 2000). As such, “workers’ compensation is the
exclusive remedy available to an injured employee as to any negligence on the part
of that employee’s employer.” Eller v. Shova,
630 So. 2d 537, 539 (Fla. 1993)
(citing Fla. Stat. §
440.11(1)); see also Ruiz v....
...2d at 686.
There are two exceptions to this rule. Workers’ compensation law does not
immunize an employer from suit when: (1) the employer’s intentional tort causes
the employee’s injury, see Jones v. Martin Elecs., Inc.,
932 So. 2d 1100, 1104–05
(Fla. 2006); Fla. Stat. §
440.11(1)(b)(1); or (2) the employer’s conduct is
“substantially certain” to injure the employee, Eller,
630 So. 2d at 539; see also
Fla. Stat. §
440.11(1)(b)(2).
Moreover, even when the injured employee’s tort action is not subject to
workers’ compensation immunity, an injured employee may be precluded from
bringing a tort suit against his employer when the employee has elected workers’
compensation benefits as his exclusive remedy....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 337043
...e of repose was not necessarily its demise. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Acosta,
612 So.2d 1361 (Fla. 1992). The individual defendants argue there was no evidence of gross negligence and the trial court should have directed a verdict. We disagree. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provided that fellow-employees have the same workers' compensation immunity from liability as an employer except where there is "willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or ......
...Defendants argue in the alternative that an amendment to the workers' compensation statute, which was passed after this accident, gave supervisory employees immunity, even if they were grossly negligent, and that this amendment is applicable. They rely on the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1) which provided that corporate officers, directors, or supervisors, etc., would have the same immunity as employers....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
..., the Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), which provides the exclusive remedy against the employer for an employee injured on the job. The trial court granted this motion. Appellant raises two points on appeal: (1) that the exclusivity provision of section 440.11 [2] must be raised by an affirmative defense and not by a motion to dismiss, and (2) that section 440.11 does not provide immunity from suit to either an employee or coemployee for an act alleged to constitute either wilful and wanton misconduct or an intentional tort. The complaint made no allegation regarding workers' compensation insurance coverage. In this situation, the exclusivity provision of 440.11 is an affirmative defense and cannot be raised by a motion to dismiss....
...Accordingly, the order dismissing appellants' complaint is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Joseph J. Brien, president of I.T.D., who was named as a party defendant, is not involved in this appeal. [2] Section 440.11 provides that an employer's liability is limited to that imposed by the Act unless the employer "fails to secure payment of compensation" as required by chapter 440.
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9083
...FPL amended its complaint so that the demand for indemnity before this Court was stated in two counts which will be discussed separately. 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....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 267906
...denied,
542 So.2d 988 (Fla.1989); Doctor's Business Service, Inc. v. Clark,
498 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied,
506 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1987); Johns v. State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services,
485 So.2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied,
492 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1986). Section
440.11 of the Florida Statutes grants immunity to employers where the injury or death is covered by workers' compensation....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3320
...s that Bowman, an employee of Western Union, was subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act since he was injured in the course of employment by a co-worker, and that, accordingly, his exclusive remedy is against his employer (F.S.A. § 440.11, 1957). It is urged that to allow recovery against a third party who will be liable to indemnify the injured employee's employer will do violence to the legislative fiat of Section 440.11, supra....
...such result in the instant case. In the rental contract Western Union agreed to indemnify Atlanta Baggage & Cab Company for damage which might result to the truck while in its control, thus waiving any benefit of the exclusiveness of the Act (F.S.A. § 440.11, 1957)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4354, 2011 WL 1135455
...hat at least some of them stated a cause of action precluding summary judgment). Defendants argue that,. even if plaintiff set forth sufficient facts to establish common law tort claims, the Florida *938 Workers’ Compensation Act, §§
440.015 and
440.11, Florida Statutes (2009), is the exclusive remedy against her employer....
...“[Workers’ compensation generally is the sole tort remedy available to a worker injured in a manner that falls within the broad scope and policies of the workers’ compensation statute.” Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Sec., Inc.,
552 So.2d 1099, 1100 (Fla.1989). Section -
440.11 states that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy “in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfea-sor and to the employee ......
...d as a ‘risk’ inherent in any work environment.” Id. Moreover, the exclusiveness of recovery under workers’ compensation does not apply “[w]hen an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee.” See § 440.11(b)....
...[t]he employer deliberately intended to injure the employee; or ... [t]he employer engaged in conduct that the employer knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings ... was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee.” See § 440.11(b)l and 2. Accordingly, an employer cannot intentionally injure an employee and enjoy immunity from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Act. See § 440.11(b)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 508120
...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....
...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....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 29567
...The force threw him into the water; another man pulled him out but attempts at resuscitation were unavailing. Because Corbett was killed while acting within the course and scope of his employment, the original lawsuit against A & H Seawall was terminated by summary judgment pursuant to the exclusivity provisions of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1985)....
...At the commencement of trial, Day was voluntarily dismissed. Hoyt has contended on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in his favor on the ground that under no view of the evidence could it be said that he acted with gross negligence, the liability standard prescribed in section
440.11, Florida *100 Statutes, essential to maintenance of the instant lawsuit. We agree. In Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla. 1987), the supreme court stated that sections
440.01 and
440.11(1) "unambiguously impose liability on all employees for their gross negligence resulting in death or injury to their fellow employees....
...Accordingly, because the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to sustain the cause of action, we reverse the order denying Hoyt's motion for directed verdict, vacate the cost order and the final judgments, and remand for the entry of judgment in favor of Hoyt. DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1985), provided as follows: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 602387
...Jose Lluch appeals the trial court's summary judgment entered in favor of defendants American Airlines, Inc. and Carlton Lloyd Service, as well as dismissal of Lluch's complaint with prejudice, based on workers' compensation immunity provided to a statutory employer under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2003)....
...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. Service contended that he enjoyed co-employee immunity pursuant to section
440.11(1)....
...On the issue of whether workers' compensation immunity is inapplicable here because Lluch and Service were assigned and engaged in unrelated works, we conclude that there are material questions of fact preventing its resolution by summary judgment. According to section 440.11(1), workers' compensation immunity is inapplicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 276349
...olderbaum prior to the shooting, neither "exhibit[ed] a deliberate intent to injure [n]or ... [were] substantially certain to result in injury or death" so as to constitute an intentional tort and thus overcome Itco's workers' compensation immunity. § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3058, 1989 WL 15742
...This case requires us to determine whether the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Pub.L. No. 97-470, 96 Stat. 2584 (1983) (codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 ), (“the Act”) preempts the exclusive remedy provision of Florida’s workers’ compensation laws, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.11 (West 1981)....
...ms as to its liability for actual or statutory damages due to violations of the Act’s transportation safety requirements. The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ claims for actual or statutory damages under the Act were barred by Fla.Stat. § 440.11, which provides in part that “[t]he liability of an employer ......
...s.” 128 Cong.Rec.H. 10456 (daily ed. Dec. 20, 1982) (statement of Rep. Ford). 9 B. Both the goal of preventing unsafe transportation practices and the role of pri *1310 vate suits in enforcing worker protections convince us that applying Fla.Stat. § 440.11 to bar private suits for violations of the Act when transportation is covered by workers’ compensation insurance would frustrate congressional intent....
...McLeod & Sons Packing Co.,
765 F.2d 1317, 1332 (5th Cir.1985) (“Plainly, it ought not to be cheaper to violate [the FLORA] and be sued than to comply with the statutory requirements.”). We therefore conclude that the exclusive remedy provision in Fla.Stat. §
440.11 is preempted because it stands as “an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v....
...Evidence of the amount of workers’ compensation benefits received, however, can be considered in calculating the amount of actual damages to be awarded pursuant to section 1854. We therefore conclude that section 1854 of the Act preempts Florida Stat. § 440.11....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 10355, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 632
...Taos Construction, Inc.,
605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla.1992), wherein the Florida Supreme Court held that an employee who had received workers’ compensation benefits had elected an exclusive remedy and was estopped from bringing a common law claim against his employer. See Fla. Stat. §
440.11 (1) (2002) (providing that workers’ compensation benefits are “exclusive and in place of all other liability”); Tho rnber v....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...In July, 1980, Crosby filed a negligence action against the City under the provisions of the Hazardous Occupations Act, Chapter 769, Florida Statutes. On the City's motion to dismiss, [1] the court ordered the complaint dismissed with prejudice holding that by virtue of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, the employer's liability to the employee was limited to the statutory benefits of the Workers' Compensation Act....
...s included, in one form or another, a provision limiting the employer's liability to an employee exclusively to that provided in the Workers' Compensation Act. That part of the statute applicable to this case provides, in relevant part, as follows: "440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
...sband 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. .. ." Recently, the Supreme Court, in discussing the constitutionality of Section
440.11, Florida Statutes, in a different context, stated in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Smith,
359 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1978), at page 428: "The sole and total liability of such employer is that defined in the Act itself. Moreover, we find no constitutional infirmity because of the grant of immunity to such employer under Section
440.11, supra." Further, in the same case, the Court stated, at page 429: "The Workmen's Compensation Act, by its express terms, replaces tort liability of the employer with strict liability for payment of the statutory benefits without regard to fault....
...and the State. And, whether the injury to the employee is caused by `gross negligence', `wanton negligence', `simple negligence' passive or active, or no negligence at all of the employer, is of no consequence." Notwithstanding the clear language of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, and of the numerous Florida cases which have recognized that the exclusive liability of the employer is limited to that set forth in the Workers' Compensation Act, appellant contends that the Hazardous Occupations Act is an exception to the employer's exclusive liability provision of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
...n by the courts. A more likely reason for the legislature not repealing the Hazardous Occupations Act is a legislative intent that the Act not be supplanted in those instances where the employer's liability does not, for one reason or another, enjoy Section 440.11 limitation. We have been unable to find any reported decision of an appellate court of this state which has expressly held that the Hazardous Occupations Act is not an exception to the employer's exclusive liability *1027 provision of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, although two reported decisions have so held by implication....
...Lykes Bros., Inc.,
64 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1953), as follows: "Appellant contends that it was not the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act to exclude the father from recovering damages for mental pain and suffering in a case like this, but we think Section
440.11, F.S.A....
...Despite the absence of reported decisions of Florida appellate courts on the issue, the identical issue has been determined adversely to appellant's position by the federal courts. In Macarages v. Raymond Concrete Pile Company,
220 F.2d 891 (5th Cir.1955), the court held that the exclusive liability provision of Section
440.11, Florida Statutes, was not the type of "contract, contrivance or device" prohibited in Section
769.06, Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 217150
...Appellees also assert that the murder was not "work-connected." Winn Dixie reasons that if decedent's wrongful death is compensable by workers' compensation, then, as the employer, it is immune from tort suit under the exclusivity provision of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, Fla. Stat. § 440.11 (1991), absent an intentional tort on the employer's part....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8906, 2004 WL 1361578
...S SUSTAINED ON THE JOB THAT WERE THE BASIS FOR THE AWARD? The order under review is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of appellant. BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] On the date Mr. Jones was injured, section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provided that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy for accidental injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and scope of employment: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death.... The current version of section 440.11(1), effective October 1, 2003, provides in part: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...pparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. See ch.2003-412, §§ 14, 50, at 3890-91, 3969, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 443855
...mmary judgment in a wrongful death action against Thompson's employer and three managerial co-employees. We affirm because the circuit court correctly determined that workers' compensation provides the sole remedy and bars the wrongful death action. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989), grants employers and supervisors immunity from tort actions for work-related injuries or death....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ntractor, 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....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1751
...iciently support a cause of action sounding in intentional tort. [1] The essence of the employee's argument is that the Workers' Compensation Law does not, and was never intended to, preclude actions against employers for intentional torts. However, Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), clearly provides that: The liability of an employer ......
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1896389
...against American Engineering and Sunbelt. American Engineering and Sunbelt filed motions for summary judgment, seeking workers' compensation immunity. American Engineering argued that it was entitled to statutory workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2002)....
...At the summary judgment hearing, the Estate acknowledged that "under normal circumstances," American Engineering "would be covered under workmen's comp immunity," but that, based on the language contained in the Hold Harmless Agreement, American Engineering was not entitled to the immunity provided in section 440.11(2)....
...rican Engineering's motion for summary judgment and entering summary judgment in favor of the Estate. This non-final appeal follows. American Engineering contends that, as a matter of law, it is entitled to workers' compensation immunity pursuant to section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2002)....
...Rainey,
890 So.2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("`The standard of review governing a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment posing a pure question of law is de novo.'")(quoting Major League Baseball v. Morsani,
790 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 2001)). "Section
440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2002), extends an employer's immunity from tort liability to work related injuries of employees obtained through a help supply services company and also applies to companies that hire workers through temporary employment agencies." Watson v....
...oyer and thereby precluded by the Workers' Compensation Act from maintaining a tort action against the special employer"). The Estate argues that, although American Engineering would normally be entitled to workers' compensation immunity pursuant to section 440.11(2), based on the Hold Harmless Agreement, American Engineering has waived its statutory entitlement to immunity....
...ed its statutory right to immunity. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court reversibly erred by granting summary judgment in 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....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 382296
...We reverse. Defendant B.E.T. Plant Services, Inc. ("employer") hired plaintiff-appellee Leroy Dyer through a temporary help agency. For purposes of the worker's compensation law, B.E.T. Plant Services, Inc. is the statutory employer of plaintiff. See § 440.11(2), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 767
...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). Although section
440.11 bars the plaintiffs' claim against Mr....
...Perkins and that his negligence in failing to maintain the stairway caused Mr. Perkins' accident. The trial court correctly dismissed this count because the plaintiffs did not allege that Mr. Scott's conduct involved gross negligence or any other exception to fellow-employee immunity. § 440.11, Fla....
...Perkins, as a fellow employee, extends only to their relationship as fellow employees in the course and scope of their mutual employment with S & S Pro Color. His statutory immunity protects him only when he is "acting in furtherance of the employer's business." § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 331, 1997 WL 35015
...Lovin Mood, Inc., appeals an amended nonfinal order denying its motion for summary judgment in a negligence action brought by employee Doreen Bush for injuries sustained by Bush in an attack and rape committed by an alleged "customer" in its *62 store. Lovin Mood sought summary judgment based on the immunity provided by section 440.11 of the Worker's Compensation Law....
...1st DCA 1981)(rejecting employer's contention that claimant's injury resulting from rape in company parking lot did not arise out of her employment where employment created the hazard, i.e., claimant worked late). Accordingly, Bush's injuries fall within the exclusivity provision of section 440.11 and Lovin Mood is entitled to the immunity provided thereby....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 563
...Strachan had previously been sued by one of the injured workers (Spigner) and anticipated being sued by the remaining workers. In the instant case, Strachan is seeking a judicial determination that it is immune from liability pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (section 440.11, Florida Statutes). Strachan had previously asserted this defense in the lawsuit filed by Spigner. In that case, the court entered a summary judgment which found that Strachan was not entitled to assert the immunity provided for in section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
...ut leave to amend. Thompson v. McNeill Co., Inc.,
464 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). While the complaint is somewhat vague, it appears that the plaintiff's request for relief involved a determination of the applicability of the immunity contained in section
440.11, Florida Statutes, to an ascertainable set of facts....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 238207, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 924
...er. The trial court concluded that the employer had worker’s compensation immunity based upon the facts of the case. The appellant contends that material issues of fact remained as to whether he met the exception for employer immunity set forth in section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
...e him believe that “[t]he wind was too high through the whole thing.” Zachry moved for summary judgment. In its motion, Zachry argued that there are no disputed issues of material fact on the question of whether it was entitled to immunity under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, which provides for workers’ compensation immunity when the plaintiff is provided with workers’ compensation....
...4th DCA 2011). In considering a summary judgment, the trial court determines only whether the moving party has proved a negative — the non-existence of a material fact. Winston Park, Ltd. v. City of Coconut Creek,
872 So.2d 415, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Section
440.11, Florida Statutes, provides for immunity of an employer from personal injury suits for work-related injuries....
...e, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11(l)(b)2., Fla....
...No evidence supports the requirement that “[t]he employer engaged in conduct that the employer knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee.” § 440.11(l)(b)2., Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 45704
...d by workers' compensation immunity and the leased dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Relying on Halifax Paving, Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Const., Inc.,
565 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 1990), the Society successfully moved for summary judgment. We affirm. Under Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1995), an owner of a dangerous instrumentality enjoys the same limited liability or immunity from a tort action as the employer of an employee injured by the instrumentality where it is leased to, and under the control of, the employer....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 8999
...is alleged to have been gross negligence on the part of David. David filed a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action. The motion asserted that David was immune from liability to either Stephens or Hyster pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...tfeasors for injuries to employees which result from acts within the course and scope of the corporate officer's managerial and policymaking duties, unless such acts constitute at least first-degree misdemeanors. Hyster responded that the portion of section 440.11(1) upon which David relied had been added effective October 1, 1988....
...It is from the trial court's final judgment dismissing with prejudice Hyster's action for contribution that Hyster appeals. On appeal, Hyster argues that its right to contribution from David "arose at the time of the joint conduct that caused the injury." That "joint conduct" occurred in 1985. The 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1) was not intended by the legislature to have retroactive effect....
...David responds that, pursuant to the contribution statute, a cause of action for contribution does not accrue until the party seeking contribution has paid more than its share of the common liability. According to David, this happened, if at all, in 1990, after the effective date of the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1)....
...of the common liability," it is generally held that he or she *681 has nothing more than a contingent or inchoate right to contribution. E.g., Albert v. Dietz,
283 F. Supp. at 857; National Mutual Insurance Co., 435 N.E.2d at 1123. In relevant part, section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (Supp....
...in s.
775.082. The emphasized portion of the statute is the part added in 1988. Ch. 88-284, § 1, Laws of Fla. Its effect is the subject of the dispute in this case. In Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1987), the supreme court had held that section
440.11(1), as it read prior to the 1988 amendment, did not prohibit civil actions against corporate officers and supervisors for gross negligence resulting in injury or death to an employee....
...If the 1988 amendment applies to this case, dismissal with prejudice was correct, because Hyster's amended complaint alleges only gross negligence on the part of David. See Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Smith,
359 So.2d 427, 429 (Fla. 1978) ("Section
440.11 ......
...o contribution from David it had "only a possibility of a claim" against David. Showell Industries,
409 So.2d at 79. Until it had paid the Stephenses, Hyster had neither suffered any injury nor incurred any damages. Applying the 1988 amendment to section
440.11(1) prospectively, as of October 1990, when the Stephenses were paid and any claim which Hyster might have had for contribution accrued, compels the conclusion that, because of the amendment, there was no "common liability" insofar as David was concerned....
...1st DCA 1986) (suggesting that a change in the law, extinguishing common liability, which occurs before payment of the tort claim bars contribution); Orlando Armature Works, Inc. v. Manning,
283 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (indemnity action barred because it did not accrue until after the effective date of section *682
440.11, which precluded such an action)....
...Because there was no "common liability" in October 1990 when Hyster paid the Stephenses and any claim it might have had for contribution could have first accrued, David could not have been liable to Hyster for contribution. Nor do we believe that such an application of the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1) denies Hyster due process of law....
...ate, sued the chairman of the board, president and regional manager of his late wife's employer, alleging that his wife's death had been the result of gross negligence on the part of those individuals. The trial court held that the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1) barred the action, and that the amendment was constitutional....
...On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the 1988 amendment deprived him of his right to access to the courts for redress, in violation of article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution. In a 2-1 decision, the Shova majority concluded that, as applied to the plaintiff, by adopting the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1), the legislature had effectively abolished the plaintiff's pre-existing cause of action for any form of negligence against fellow employees acting in a managerial or policymaking capacity, without providing a reasonable alternative means of redress. Accordingly, the majority held that, as applied to the facts before it, the 1988 amendment was unconstitutional. In a well-reasoned dissent, Judge Altenbernd argued persuasively that the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1) was not constitutionally infirm....
...tion; article I, section 21, does not require that a reasonable alternative means of redress be provided on the facts of this case. Kluger v. White,
281 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1973). Based upon the preceding discussion, we conclude that the 1988 amendment to section
440.11(1) bars the action sought to be asserted by Hyster; that that amendment does not deprive Hyster of any vested right; and that, therefore, the trial court correctly entered the final judgment dismissing the action with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ase 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. However, the deputy noted that, pursuant to §
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, if a covered employer fails to secure the payment of compensation as required by the workers' compensation law, an injured worker may maintain an action at law for damages and several traditional common law defenses are statutorily unavailable to the employer....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...on the contract work are deemed to be employed in one and the same business establishment and the contractor shall be liable for 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....
...Pursuant to the statute and cases, Apgar & Markham had the statutory liability to secure compensation coverage for employees of the subcontractors which they discharged. This liability gave rise to the immunity granted to the owner and contractor by Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...s the general contractor. Quayside Associates, the owner, was immune from suit while Apgar & Markham served as general contractor. Quayside Associates became the general contractor by virtue of assignment and was entitled to immunity from suit under Section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 2515, 2011 WL 680282
...This argument, in addition to being flawed in its premise (as chapter 440 provides an arsenal of remedies to address the wrongs committed here), stands in stark contrast to the statutory proclamation that the liability of a carrier to an employee shall be "as provided" by chapter 440 ( see section 440.11(4), Florida Statutes (2007)) and would require this court to unravel the comprehensive scheme enacted by the Legislature relating to coverage, the issuance and cancellation of policies, the collection of premiums, the performance of au...
...Since Perkins ' release in 1993, there have been significant, broad-sweeping revisions to the Workers' Compensation Law; however, no subsequent enactment provides a basis to conclude that a JCC's authority has been expanded to allow for the imposition of remedies not expressly conferred by chapter 440. Cf. § 440.11(4), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 721, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3555, 2014 WL 6836320
...right to bring a tort action against
Lawns. Rather, because the estate alleged that Lawns’ negligence caused Morales’
death, its exclusive remedy was under Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law,
chapter 440, Florida Statutes. See generally § 440.11(1), Fla....
...for which his employer was vicariously liable. Id. at 241. This allegation
-8-
implicated a statutory exception to workers’ compensation immunity and allowed
Wright to pursue a civil remedy. See generally § 440.11(1), Fla....
...ars
coverage for bodily injury to employees) applied to preclude coverage. Id. The
Third District explained its holding with respect to the workers’ compensation
exclusion as follows: because “[t]he ‘employer’s liability’ is pursuant to section
440.11(1)” of the Workers’ Compensation Law, its “obligation to [the employee] is
one ‘under a workers’ compensation ....
...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 or in admiralty on account of such injury or
death.” § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 3481370
...Wollheim may have had actual knowledge of that fact even at the time it was constructed, which may have been in 1987. No one argues in this case that Dinettes Unlimited has any liability beyond its obligation to provide workers' compensation benefits or that Mr. Wollheim has any liability as an officer of the employer. See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2921808
...Thus, to obtain a partial summary judgment, the burden was on appellees to disprove appellant's affirmative defense of workers' compensation immunity. Appellant's affirmative defense of workers' compensation immunity is governed by two different statutes. Pursuant to section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2002), workers' compensation immunity extends to an employer who uses the employees of a "help supply services company." Such employees are considered borrowed employees of the employer, who is liable for securing...
...th section
440.38. If CORE did secure compensation in compliance with section
440.38, Orr was the employee of a licensed employee leasing company (CORE) pursuant to section
468.529, and appellant would have workers' compensation immunity pursuant to section
440.11(2)....
...40.385 and
440.386, Florida Statutes (2002). However, if CORE did not secure compensation in compliance with section
440.38, Orr was not the employee of a licensed employee leasing company but, rather, the borrowed employee of appellant by virtue of section
440.11(2). In the latter case, because it appears undisputed that appellant never secured workers' compensation coverage for Orr, appellant would not be entitled to workers' compensation immunity. See §
440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19675, 2005 WL 3404387
...tion, have been presented to a county judge or to a judge of compensation claims instead. The judge of compensation claims took the view that "[c]laimant's workers' compensation claim could not have been the subject matter of the complaint because F.S. 440.11 provided Patco with immunity from civil action." The judge of compensation claims is undoubtedly correct that Patco could have set up workers' compensation immunity as an affirmative defense in the civil suit as, indeed, the other driver, if an employee of Patco, could also have done. See § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 638294
...GREEN, Judge. Sarah Subileau appeals an adverse final summary judgment rendered in favor of appellees after the trial court below concluded that her wrongful death claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of Florida's workers' compensation statute, section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...vices. Appellees also conceded, for purposes of the motion, that they were aware of past injuries to employees caused by falls from elevated worksites. Nevertheless, appellees argue that as a matter of law, these facts do not suffice to overcome the § 440.11(1) bar to tort claims by an employee against his employer. We agree. This accident and action is governed by a 1988 amendment to subsection 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
...We find the employer's behavior in Connelly to be far more egregious in nature than the conduct of appellees in this case. In Connelly, the air carrier intentionally deceived members of its crew about the dangerous mechanical shortcomings of their aircraft. Construing section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1983), this Court concluded that Arrow's deliberate overloading of the aircraft, combined with its failure to repair it, was indeed "substantially certain" to cause a crash under § 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983)....
...The potential danger or hazard of working on these elevated worksites without guardrails or safety devices was known and obvious to the employees. Hence, we can only find that appellees' conduct in not securing these worksites amounted to only negligence and thus, section 440.11(1) would be a bar to this suit....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19296, 2009 WL 4720460
...dangerous because its safety guard had been intentionally removed. Gall's complaint sought recovery of tort damages. Although workplace injuries are normally subject to the exclusive liability provisions of Florida's workers' compensation statutes, section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes sets forth limited exceptions to such exclusivity. One exception applies when an employer engages in conduct that the employer knew was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee. See § 440.11(1)(b), Fla....
...In her complaint, Gall alleged that Petro and Barry Flowers engaged in such conduct and, accordingly, Gall was entitled to pursue a tort claim. Petro filed a motion seeking summary judgment, contending that it was entitled to immunity from Gall's tort suit pursuant to section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes because Gall had actively pursued to conclusion a claim for workers' compensation benefits and, thus, Gall was barred from seeking a tort recovery pursuant to the doctrine of election of remedies....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...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....
...In addition, when these contractors sublet work, they must also secure compensation for the subcontractor's employees unless the subcontractor has already so provided. This makes the contractor who sublets work the statutory employer of all employees of its subcontractors working on a particular project. Section 440.11(1) [2] makes this liability *274 to secure compensation the exclusive form of liability of the employer....
...ntal" 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 by the exclusiveness of liability provisions of § 440.11 from action at law or in admiralty on account of injury of such employee of another subcontractor....
...ontractors. 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...
...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. [2] 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...nce Company settled the claim with decedent's estate for a substantial sum of money. Thereafter, on May 18, 1971, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant Central Air Conditioning Company for indemnification. The legislature of Florida amended Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, effective June 18, 1971, so as to eliminate the type cause of action sued upon by the plaintiffs....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 488
...The city filed an amended third-party complaint against appellee based upon the indemnity clause contained in the contract between the parties. [1] Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting immunity from the third-party complaint by virtue of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), [2] because of the workers' compensation *1118 benefits appellee provided its injured employee....
...Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co.,
310 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1975), the supreme court held that a negligent third party's common law action for indemnification against a negligent employer whose injured employee had received workers' compensation benefits is not barred by section
440.11(1)....
...The court then observed that unlike indemnity, there was no right of contribution at common law. Section
768.31, Florida Statutes (1975), expressly modified the common law by creating a new cause of action between active joint tortfeasors for contribution. The court held that the exclusive remedy provision of section
440.11(1) precludes an employer from being sued under the contribution statute....
...[3] The general consensus in other jurisdictions is that exclusive remedy provisions of the applicable state workers' compensation acts do not bar an employer from expressly contracting to indemnify a third-party tortfeasor. See generally Annot., 100 A.L.R.3d 350, 380. On the authority of Sunspan, we hold that section 440.11(1) is unconstitutional as applied to appellant insofar as it would destroy the right of appellant under the foregoing contract of indemnity....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 238662
...hey do not act with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or proximately cause injury or death. Kennedy v. Moree,
650 So.2d 1102, 1105-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); §
440.11(1), Fla. Stat. Since 1988, section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, has given the same immunities as those of the employer to any sole proprietor, partner, corporate officer or director, supervisor or other person who in the course and scope of his duties acts in a managerial or p...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 148729
...act pertaining to the borrowed servant/workers' compensation defense. Florida's workers' compensation law extends an employer's immunity from tort liability to the work related injuries of employees obtained through a "help supply services company." § 440.11(2), Fla....
...actual employment relationship, and not the subjective intent of the parties, is controlling. Here, Regency is in the business of supplying temporary help and provided workers' compensation coverage, thereby clearly falling under the terminology of Section 440.11(2)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 13632, 2003 WL 22082156
...stead. Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's mandate in Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano,
801 So.2d 101 (Fla.2001) ("Juliano III"), we must resolve the issues of whether culpable negligence is the proper standard of negligence under section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997) [1] ; *13 and whether the trial court erred in denying the Florida Department of Transportation's ("DOT") motion for summary judgment and/or directed verdictthereby disallowing DOT's workers' compensation immunity defense....
...The supreme court quashed Juliano II and remanded with instructions that we address the merits of the issue of whether Juliano was required to plead and prove culpable negligence, as opposed to simple negligence, against a supervisory employee engaged in "unrelated works" pursuant to section 440.11(1)....
...Two cases considered this issue and arrived at conflicting conclusions. See Kaplan v. Cir. Ct. of 10th Jud. Cir. for Polk County,
495 So.2d 231, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that corporate officers are not employees, rather they are employers entitled to immunity under section
440.11(1)); Sullivan v....
...4th DCA 1986) (finding that corporate officers are employees and liable for gross negligence in failing to provide safe workplace). Both cases were certified to the Florida Supreme Court for resolution. The court in Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.1987), held that section
440.11(1) imposed liability on all employees, including corporate officers, executives, and supervisors, who act with gross negligence toward their fellow employees. [6] In response to Streeter, the 1988 legislature again amended section
440.11(1) to provide for, in the Florida Supreme Court's words, heightened immunity to policymaking types of employees by raising the degree of negligence necessary to maintain a civil tort action against such employees from gross negligence to culpable negligence when those employees are engaged in managerial or policymaking decisions. Eller,
630 So.2d at 541 (Fla.1993). [7] See also Subileau v. S. Forming, Inc.,
664 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) ("The new language [of section
440.11(1)] provides that both employers and those in a managerial capacity are immune from suit for on-the-job injuries sustained by employees, unless the employer or manager's conduct amounts to criminal conduct punishable by more than 60 days imprisonment under *16 the applicable criminal statute."). Specifically, the 1988 amendment to section
440.11(1) provides in relevant part that: The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any sole proprietor, partner, corporate officer or director, supervisor, or other person who in the course and scope of his duti...
...thin the course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties and was not a violation of a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed exceeds 60 days imprisonment as set forth in s.
775.082. §
440.11(1), Fla....
...Dist.,
840 So.2d 460, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (stating that "[a]n expansive construction [of the `unrelated works' doctrine] would obliterate the legislative intent that the system operate at `a reasonable cost' to the employer."). Moreover, the plain language of section
440.11(1), applies to all managerial personnel, whether or not involved in unrelated works....
...h injury or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). [6] Specifically, the court stated that section 440.11 was "an unambiguous statement of the legislature's desire to impose liability on all employees who act with gross negligence with respect to their fellow employees...." Streeter v....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2006 WL 2864419
...tiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. Fed. R.Civ.P. 19(a). For a person covered by Florida's workers' compensation laws, the relevant statutes significantly restrict actions at law against an employer. Under § 440.11(1) of the Florida Statutes, "[t]he liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...Upon consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.4) is GRANTED IN PART without prejudice, as set forth herein. NOTES [1] There is an exception to the general rule in cases in which the Plaintiff claims that the employer committed an intentional tort. See Fla. Stat. § 440.11(1)(b); Travelers Indem....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17627, 2014 WL 5462528
...entered in favor of the defendant, Airguide Manufacturing, LLC (“Airguide”),
based on the trial court’s ruling that Airguide was entitled to workers’
compensation immunity. Because we find the trial court correctly found that
Airguide was entitled to immunity under section 440.11(2) of the Florida Statutes
(2010), we affirm.
Baker began working for a company called Pacesetter in January 2008....
...After some discovery, Airguide filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that it was immune from liability because Baker was either a “borrowed
servant” under common law doctrine or was an employee of a help supply services
company as provided in section 440.11(2) of the Florida Statutes, and therefore,
Baker’s exclusive remedy was through workers’ compensation, which she had
already received.
The motion for summary judgment cited and relied heavily upon Baker’s
deposition testimony....
...While these two documents may have potentially
created a dispute as to whether Airguide sufficiently established that it was entitled
to immunity under the common law “borrowed servant” doctrine, they create no
dispute as to whether Airguide is entitled to immunity as a “help supply services
company” under section 440.11(2) of the Florida Statutes. Because Airguide is
5
clearly a help supply services company under section 440.11(2), we affirm the trial
court’s ruling on that issue as well.
As explained by this Court in Cabrera v....
...Fossett v. Se. Toyota Distribs., LLC,
60 So. 3d 1155, 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
(quoting St. Lucie Falls Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Morelli,
956 So. 2d 1283, 1286
(Fla. 4th DCA 2007)).
In addition to the common law “borrowed servant” doctrine, section
440.11(2) of the Florida Statutes also extends statutory workers’ compensation
immunity to employers utilizing the employees of a “help supply services
company.” Specifically, subsection
440.11(2) states:
The [workers’ compensation] immunity from liability described in
subsection (1) shall extend to an employer and to each employee of
the employer which uses the services of the employees of a help
s...
...440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help
supply services company.
7
(emphasis added). North American Industrial Classification System (“NAICS”)
Code 561320, which is expressly incorporated into subsection 440.11(2),1 further
defines “help supply services company” by providing:
561320 Temporary Help Services
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
supplying workers to clients’ businesses for limited periods of time to
supplement the working force of the client....
...l
employer and special employer exercised over the employee. Suarez v.
Transmontaigne Servs., Inc.,
127 So. 3d 845, 847-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Conversely, the statutory immunity for employers that utilize help supply services
1 Subsection
440.11(2) also incorporates NAICS Code 561330....
...Code 561330
defines Professional Employer Organizations, and its terms do not apply to this
case.
8
companies requires only that the special employer demonstrate that the employee
was acquired from a help supply service company. § 440.11(2); Hazealeferiou,
947 So....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...The Workers' Compensation Statute provides an exclusive remedy for an employee injured at work. The statute restricts the employee's recovery except as provided within Chapter 440 and precludes further liability of the employer to a spouse. Chapter 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981) provides: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...resentative thereof, 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, .. . We find no merit in appellant's argument that Section 440.11, Florida Statutes denies her access to the courts....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22799549
...The accident occurred when a backhoe, which was taken without permission, was being used to push a tree. The Estate filed a wrongful death action against Officer Byers' supervisors, Ritz and Barcinas, based on the "criminal acts" exception to worker's compensation immunity. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...eir motion for summary judgment on the issue of worker's compensation immunity. We disagree. Specifically, the defendants contend that the "criminal acts" exception to worker's compensation immunity is not applicable in the instant case. Pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), the "criminal acts" exception is applicable when "the conduct which caused the alleged injury arose within the course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties and was not a violation of a law, wh...
...Proceedings Below Byers' father filed this wrongful death action against his son's supervisors, Ritz and Barcinas. He alleged that because Ritz and Barcinas had committed a crime (i.e., the theft of the backhoe) which caused his son's death, they were not entitled to worker's compensation immunity as set forth in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...The relationship between the unlawful act committed (petty theft) and the result effected (death by heart attack during pursuit in an automobile) does not meet the test of causation historically or currently required in Florida for conviction of manslaughter. Todd,
594 So.2d at 806. IV. Conclusion Section
440.11 plainly states that supervisors will have the same immunity as an employer if the conduct which caused the employee's injury: 1) arose within the course and scope of the supervisor's duties, and 2) was not a violation of law. §
440.11(1), Fla. Stat. Given the legislature's intent to provide employers with broad immunity, [5] and the court's practices of preserving this immunity, [6] I believe that the "cause" described in section
440.11 can mean nothing other than "proximate" or "legal" cause....
...[7] For this reason, I would affirm the final judgment under review. See Chase v. Cowart,
102 So.2d 147, 150 (Fla.1958)(result in trial court must be affirmed if right, even if right for wrong reason). RAMIREZ, J. (concurring). I concur with the majority based on my reading of section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1991), which provides for worker's compensation immunity if "the conduct which caused the alleged injury ......
...t officer happened on the scene, the officer could have arrested the perpetrators. I thus see no support in the statute or the case law for a distinction between cause-in-fact or proximate cause, nor do I see the need for such an analysis. NOTES [1] Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides, in part, as follows: The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any ......
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 31641509
...Bednar, Pensacola, for Appellant. Alison Perdue, Assistant County Attorney, Pensacola, for Appellee. BROWNING, J. Appellant appeals a summary judgment granted on the basis that he, an employee of Appellee, could not sue Appellee under the "unrelated works" exception provided in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995), and that his action is barred by workers' compensation immunity, as he failed to allege any negligence by a fellow co-worker doing unrelated work for Appellee....
...This is reversible error. An employee covered by workers' compensation insurance can sue an employer for the negligent acts of a fellow employee when such employee "is assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment." See § 440.11(1), Fla....
...See Florida Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano,
801 So.2d 101 (Fla.2001). Here the trial court incorrectly applied these principles. There are genuine issues of fact in dispute regarding Appellant's entitlement to sue under the "unrelated works" exception to section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995), that preclude summary judgment....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 53075
...Plaintiff appeals from a partial summary judgment entered in favor of defendants in this wrongful death case. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that there had been no gross negligence by defendants so as to invoke the exception to the exclusivity of workers' compensation remedies under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1985)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...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)....
...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, husb...
...The degree of control exercised by Steelcon over Wilson Welding's operations is, in my view, the determinative factor. As stated in Smith v. 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....
...ployee 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....
...[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. [3] Ch. 74 197, § 6, Laws of Fla. [4] Section
440.11(1) was amended in 1978, ch....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 85527
...w with the employment' go a long way towards establishing a link between the recreation and employment." Beauchesne, 375 A.2d at 922 (quoting Larson, § 22.11, at 5-63 (1972)). [2] In that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987), are inapplicable to claimant's injuries, due to the majority's determination that the claim does not come within the coverage provisions of the Act, he may now be able to pursue a civil action for personal injuries against the employer and the employee who struck him....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ber 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 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....
...The degree of control exercised by Steelcon over Wilson Welding's operations is, in my view, the determinative factor. As stated in Smith v. 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....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4410, 2011 WL 1167205
...1st DCA 2008). Contrary to claimant’s contention, section
440.19(6) applies only when a claimant first proceeds against an employer at law or in admiralty, and such relief is denied on the basis of workers’ compensation exclusivity/immunity. See §
440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 4424, 2006 WL 782855
...school board. The trial court granted the school board's motion for summary judgment on the ground of worker's compensation immunity, and she appeals. We reverse. The intentional tort exception to the general rule of worker's compensation immunity, section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2002), requires the employee to show that the employer engaged in conduct that was objectively substantially certain to result in injury....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4352, 2012 WL 934028
...We affirm the trial judge’s ruling on the denial of Ocean Reefs claim for workers’ compensation tort immunity. *3 Ocean Reef contends on appeal that the applicability of workers’ compensation immunity bars a negligence suit at law for the injuries claimed by Wilczewski and Leon. See § 440.11(l)(a), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1136334, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4419
...ion
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....
...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. Finally, the first line of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2006), states: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31120, 2004 WL 3770590
...Upon due consideration, the Defendant's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 144) is DENIED. Further, as amendment would not cure the deficiencies in counts seven and eight, the Defendant's motion for leave to amend its first amended counterclaim (Doc. 144) is also DENIED. [1] IT IS SO ORDERED. NOTES [1] § 440.11, Fla....
...Under §
624.155(1)(b)1 an insurer may be held liable for "[n]ot attempting in good faith to settle claims when, under all the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly toward its insured and with due regard for her or his interests." [20] §
440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 111345
...Myrick appeals from an order of the trial court which dismissed his second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action in intentional tort. The trial court ruled that the allegations of the amended complaint were insufficient to remove the case from the "exclusivity" provisions of section 440.11 and thus Myrick was limited to his remedies pursuant to the Florida Workers' Compensation Act....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2016 WL 3191086
facially unconstitutional as long as it contains §
440.11 as an exclusive replacement remedy.”), overruled
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...The matter was submitted to a Judge of Industrial Claims who, after *182 conducting a hearing, determined both that Continental was Marta's employer and that Continental did not have workmen's compensation insurance coverage. Marta then filed a suit in circuit court pursuant to Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....
...Continental moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Marta's original filing of a claim in the Industrial Claims Court constituted an election of remedies which precluded him from later pursuing an action in the circuit court. The trial court granted the dismissal with prejudice. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that an employee can sue an employer in circuit court for negligence only if the employer fails to secure insurance coverage....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8988, 2011 WL 2421042
...The motion asserted that summary judgment was proper because (1) Mr. 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....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 157427
...Madaffer filed an action for wrongful death against the appellees, alleging that Ronny's death was a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence of the individual appellees, for whom MLS was vicariously responsible, thereby removing the appellees' immunity from liability under the Workers' Compensation Act. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...were immune from suit by virtue of the Workers' Compensation Act. Specifically, they asserted MLS did not commit an intentional tort and the individual appellees' conduct did not constitute gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard for Ronny. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...We find that such an issue of fact exists with regard to whether the conduct of Everett Slack and Steven Hackney, Ronny's manager and foreman, respectively, amounted to gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard for Ronny, thereby removing their immunity from suit afforded by the Workers' Compensation Act. § 440.11(1)....
...had the experience and ability to drive a fuel truck, and whether Slack and Hackney had knowledge of Ronny's experience and ability or lack thereof. In concluding, we note a possible issue the parties did not address. In 1988 the legislature amended section 440.11(1) as follows with regard to the immunity from suit for employees in managerial or policy-making positions: The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any sole proprietor, partner, corporate officer or dire...
...rse and scope of said managerial or policymaking [sic] duties and was not a violation of a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed exceeds 60 days [sic] imprisonment as set forth in s.
775.082. §
440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172, 2016 WL 25943
...2363 ,
162 L.Ed.2d 257 (2005); Jones,
931 F.2d at 1092 ; Lomeli,
2015 WL 6775919 , at *4. By his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he sustained injuries as a result of Defendant’s negligence. (Doc' 2 at 1-2). Plaintiff contends that his claim “arises under” Florida Statutes §
440.06 and §
440.11(1)....
...a suit on the grounds that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, that-the employee assumed the risk of his or her employment, or that the injury was due to the comparative negligence of the employee. Similarly, Florida Statute § 440.11(l)(a) provides, The liability of an employer ......
...y negligence of. a fellow employee, that the employee assumed the risk of the employment, or that the injury was due to the comparative negligence of the employee. Plaintiffs assertion that his claim “arises under” Florida Statutes §
440.06 and §
440.11(1) is misplaced....
...Rather, Florida Statute §
440.06 merely precludes an employer from asserting certain defenses to an action at law if it fails to secure payment of compensation as required by the FWCL and an employee is forced to resort to common law remedies.-Likewise, Florida Statute §
440.11(l)(a) provides that the workers’ compensation scheme is the exclusive remedy for an injured employee unless the employer fails to obtain compensation as required under the FWCL. In the event an employer fails to obtain the requisite coverage, an employee can-institute an action at law-and an employer is precluded from asserting certain defenses. Fla. Stat..§
440.11(l)(a)....
...of work performed in the course and the scope of the employment.”' Turner v. PCR, Inc.,
754 So.2d 683, 686 (Fla.2000) (quoting Fla. Stat. §
440.09 (1)). The exclusivity of the FWCL is subject to two narrow exceptions enumerated by Florida Statute §
440.11(1), which includes the failure to secure compensation as discussed above. Fla. Stat. §
440.11 (1)(a)-(b)....
...Request to Strike Alternatively, Defendant argues that if Plaintiffs claim for negligence is permitted to proceed, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the complaint should be stricken. (Doc. 3 at 4). Paragraph 7 alleges that Defendant is precluded from raising certain affirmative defenses in accordance with Florida Statutes §
440.06 and §
440.11(l)(a)....
...Soc’y Lease, Inc.,
969 F.Supp. 713, 715 (M.D.Fla.1997). •As to paragraph 7, Defendant contends that it secured coverage for compensation as required by the FWCL so the proscription on certain affirmative defenses contained in Florida Statutes §
440.06 and §
440.11(l)(a) is inapplicable....
...coverage. (Doc. 11 at 8). Rather, Plaintiff concedes that his claim is based on Defendant’s failure to provide workers’ compensation benefits. (Id.). Although, it would appear that the prohibitions contained within Florida Statutes §
440.06 and §
440.11(l)(a) would not apply, Defendant is nevertheless free to assert any affirmative defense it believes is applicable....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 249573
...The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and a motion filed by an insurer in a related declaratory judgment action. We affirm in all respects, finding that the non-insurer appellees were "other person[s]" who acted in a "managerial or policymaking capacity" within the meaning of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1998)....
...liable, neither can the principal, because there is nothing to impute." Ostuni relies upon Gulfstream Land & Development Corp. v. Wilkerson,
420 So.2d 587 (Fla. 1982), but we find that case to be inapplicable because it predates the 1988 revision of section
440.11(1)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 3555572
...ath by negligently allowing Christopher to operate the motorcycle, even though Christopher was unlicensed to operate a motorcycle and was unable to operate it safely. Woodson's primary defense was to assert worker's compensation immunity pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2002)....
...ailure resulted in, or contributed to, Christopher's death. [2] Woodson moved for entry of final summary judgment, contending that he was immune from civil liability to Ivey and the Estate pursuant to the worker's compensation immunity provisions of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2002)....
...-Safe when he allowed Christopher to use his motorcycle; (3) there was negligence *996 on the part of Woodson that was a legal cause of Christopher's death; and (4) there was negligence on the part of Christopher that was a legal cause of his death. Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2002), establishing worker's compensation immunity, provides, in pertinent part: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 16033, 1998 WL 889725
...tained in a construction accident. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Howard and INA. CDM appeals contending the trial court erred in determining that its claim for indemnification was barred by Florida's Workers' Compensation Act, section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1983), and by Florida's statutory limitation on indemnification contracts, section
725.06, Florida Statutes (1983)....
...Upon review of the summary judgment motion, the trial court concluded that Howard was immune from CDM's claim for indemnity because, under Florida's Workers' Compensation Act, Howard was Mr. Eiler's statutory employer. To support this conclusion, the court cited to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, which provides, in relevant part: 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability.- (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...ty 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 or in admiralty on account of such injury or death.... § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1983). Howard properly concedes that the trial court's reliance on section 440.11(1) was misplaced....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1812879
...The defendants did not include Michael Cox, Charter Hospital, or any of Charter Hospital's employees. Because Ms. Conley sustained an on-the-job injury, any claims against Charter Hospital or her co-workers would presumably have been barred by workers' compensation immunity. See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...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)....
...Motchkavitz v. L.C. Boggs Industries, Inc.,
384 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The Legislature, in enacting the provisions of Chapter 440, abrogated the common law and made workmen's compensation the exclusive remedy for certain injured employees. §
440.11(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....
...AVING RECEIVED WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM HIS EMPLOYER, SUE HIS 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, pa...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19765
...0 as the total damages suffered by appellee. He stated, however, that he authorized the payment of only $200,000 toward the settlement of the appellee's claim because he felt that his client had a good chance of being held immune from recovery under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1977)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 1808496
...In its third party action, Griffin sought equitable subrogation and contribution from Loomis for amounts paid to the employee. Griffin claimed that Wells Fargo, Loomis's predecessor, was partially responsible for the van's defective design. Loomis claimed workers' compensation immunity. See §
440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1997) [1] ; Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Smith,
359 So.2d 427, 429-30 (Fla. 1978) (upholding constitutionality of section
440.11(1) and holding that a third-party tortfeasor is not entitled to contribution from an injured person's employer); Welch v. Complete Care Corp.,
818 So.2d 645, 648-49 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding equitable subrogation inapplicable where employer has paid workers' compensation benefits for accident and is immune from suit under section
440.11)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13874, 2007 WL 2480545
...st Rocky Elson. Rocky Elson raised the defense of workers' compensation immunity. At trial, Rocky Elson moved for a directed verdict based upon that immunity. The trial court granted the motion in part, finding Saleeby to be a borrowed servant under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2000) but denied a directed verdict on the issue of whether Rocky Elson's conduct fell within the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Rocky Elson was covered by worker's compensation immunity. On appeal, Saleeby argues that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on the borrowed servant issue. We disagree. Pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2000), the liability of an employer under the workers' compensation law "shall be exclusive and in place of all *213 other liability." The employer's immunity "is a quid pro quo; the employee forgoes the right to...
...Broward Hosp. Dist.,
840 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Florida law extends "workers' compensation immunity to an employer who uses the employees of a `help supply services company.'" Tu-Lane Invs., Inc. v. Orr,
889 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); see §
440.11, Fla. Stat. (2000). [2] "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." §
440.11(2)....
...yee, Saleeby, to Rocky Elson as a temporary laborer. Rocky Elson personnel supervised, instructed, and controlled Saleeby, who in turn acted in the furtherance of Rocky Elson's business. Therefore, Saleeby was Rocky Elson's "borrowed employee" under section 440.11(2) and, as such, he was precluded from recovering against Rocky Elson in tort....
...Saleeby microanalysis his employment experience to fashion an argument that he was not a borrowed servant; he contends that no contract arose between Rocky Elson and Labor for Hire, because there was no meeting of the minds between the companies as to the precise job Saleeby was to perform. However, section 440.11(2) does not require this level of precision. To be entitled to immunity, an employer need only "utilize the services" of the employee of a help supply company and the employee must be "acting in furtherance of the employer's business." § 440.11, Fla....
...The help supplied is always on the payroll of the supplying establishments, but is under the direct or general supervision of the business to whom the help is furnished. See St. Lucie Falls Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Morelli,
956 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citations omitted). [2] Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (2002), states in pertinent part, that: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...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. [3] In 2003, the legislature amended section
440.11(1), requiring that a plaintiff-employee prove the existence of the intentional tort exception by "clear and convincing evidence." See Feraci,
315 F.Supp.2d at 1205 n. 11 (citing §
440.11(1)(b), Fla....
...elevated "virtually certain standard," and requiring that "the employer knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee." Id. Section 440.11(1)(b); Florida Statutes (2003), does not apply retroactively....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22056258
...recover for the wrongful death of a deceased employee. [1] The state defendants filed affirmative defenses and motions for summary judgment asserting they were immune from suit under the exclusivity provision of Florida's workers' compensation law, section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14961, 2014 WL 4723565
...1st DCA 1999) (finding section
440.38’s requirement that the employer
“secure payment of compensation” was satisfied where the employer “secur[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...
...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 shall be deemed to be employed in one and the
1 Section 440.11(1) provides:
The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...e legal
representative thereof, 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 . . .
.
§ 440.11(1), Fla....
...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....
...Thus
even when a subcontractor agrees to secure coverage for its
employees, a prudent contractor will 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
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...
...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. Stat.
(2013); §
440.11(1), Fla....
...ee 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 these insur...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...ctor 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.” Liability of an employer as prescribed by the above quoted provision is specified in section
440.11 as exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, except that, if an employer 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....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 14247, 2007 WL 2609381
...Given the severity of the accident, Perez probably had limited ability to make such a request. In this case we again probe an area of the law we never cease to probeemployer immunity under Florida Workers' Compensation Law, sections
440.01-50, Florida Statutes (2001). Section
440.11 of the Florida Statutes (2001), entitled "Exclusiveness of liability," provides general immunity from litigation resulting from on-the-job injuries for an employer who secures the required compensation for his employees. However, section
440.01 also contains several well understood, express exceptions to employer immunity, including situations where the employer "fails to secure payment as required by this chapter," §
440.11(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001); "[w]hen an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee," §
440.11(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001); or where managerial employees commit "violation of a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days' imprisonment. . . ." §
440.11(1)(b)....
...t to Access to Courts, Art. I, section 21, Florida Constitution]." Kluger v. White,
281 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1973). We are wary of sanctioning or extending implied end runs around the legislatively *780 authorized exceptions to employer immunity found in section
440.11 of the Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...quishes 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. See, F.S., §
440.11 F.S.A....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 4179312
...The ladder, subsequently, could not be located. Gayer first sued Fine Line for negligence but Fine Line successfully raised an affirmative defense of worker's compensation immunity from tort liability because Gayer was Fine Line's borrowed employee under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes....
...The Varney court also explained that "the essential element controlling the issue as to [Varney's] employment status regards the right of control, or the right to direct, the manner in which the work shall be done. The payment of wages is the least important factor." Id. (citations omitted). In a workers' compensation case, section 440.11(2) addresses "the question of which of the two, the general or special employer, should be considered the employer of the temporarily assigned worker at the time of the injury." Folds, 875 So.2d. at *428 703. Subsection (2) of section 440.11, "Exclusiveness of Liability," Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part: The immunity from liability ....
...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. (emphasis added). For the purposes of section
440.11, "any other employee" of the employer is not subject to an employer's assumption of risk or fellow servant defenses, for example. See §
440.11(1), Fla. Stat. Further, the statutory employer obtains immunity in exchange for its obligation to secure workers' compensation, unless the help supply services company fulfills that duty. See Folds,
875 So.2d at 702. In sum, section
440.11(2) "creates a rebuttable presumption that a special employer using the services of a temporary employment agency ....
...at 703; see also 3 LARSON'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW § 67.05[3] n. 24.1 (2006) ("Under a Florida statute, employees from `help supply services companies' are treated, for workers' compensation purposes, as employees of the employer to whom they have been sent to work." (citing § 440.11(2), Fla....
...Even where an actual employer/employee relationship is argued, the right of control is more indicative than payment of wages. As a special employer using the services of Labor Finders, a help supply services company, Fine Line is a statutory employer under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes. Although section 440.11(2) states *429 that "a borrowed employee . . . for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer," the emphasized language refers to the defenses in subsection (1) of section 440.11, rather than suggest that a statutory employer is not subject to the rest of the Act....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2533029
...[6] On the other hand, an employee (whose employer has secured *286 workers' compensation insurance) has no legal right to sue the employer, for an injury a fellow employee (or other third party) causes in an industrial accident, unless the third party is the employer's alter ego. See § 440.11(1), Fla....
...orkers' compensation was not established to excuse misconduct of this type."). A battery by an employer, unlike a battery by a co-employee who is not the employer's alter ego, is, moreover, inherently irreconcilable with an industrial accident under section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2001). See Jones,
877 So.2d at 768. See generally §
440.11(1)(b), Fla....
...4th DCA 1998); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Parks,
620 So.2d 798, 799-800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); McDaniel v. Sheffield,
431 So.2d 230, 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Chorak v. Naughton,
409 So.2d 35, 37-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). On the date Mr. Powers was injured, section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2001), provided: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death.... Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, has since been amended....
...(2001), the maximum penalty for which (one year), §
775.082(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001), exceeds 60 days' imprisonment, the statutory immunity against civil liability otherwise afforded was unavailable to Mr. Clark individually, under the allegations both of the complaint and of the petitions. See §
440.11(1), Fla....
...olation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days' imprisonment as set forth in s.
775.082."). [3] The judgment against ERPOC did not rest on an allegation that ERPOC committed an intentional tort. Under section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2001), an employer has no immunity from civil suit where the employer "engage[s] in any intentional act designed to result in or that is substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee," Eller v....
...munity against civil liability on theories of negligent hiring, retention and supervision of fellow employees. [5] Since the accident at issue in the present case, the Legislature has enacted ch.2003-412, § 14, at 3890-91, Laws of Fla., codified as § 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2003), intended to make even an employer's vicarious liability in tort legally antithetical to responsibility under the Workers' Compensation Law....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2534233
...ight. The County sought to avoid liability claiming that Aravena's action was barred by that portion of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law which accords tort immunity to employers and co-employees "acting in furtherance of the employer's business." § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 1987257
...The plaintiffs also sued Footstar, alleging that it had negligently hired, retained, supervised, and trained Cooper. Ultimately, the trial court entered a final judgment on the pleadings in favor of Footstar on the basis that the workers' compensation law barred the plaintiffs' claims. See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1979461, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7805
...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)....
...Liability for Compensation (l)(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 ... and is protected by the exclusiveness of liability provisions of s. 440.11 from any action at law ......
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1810630, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6924
...ts, Inc., and Edgar Javier Ramos, Publix’s employee, finding that both Publix and Ramos were covered by worker’s compensation immunity for the death of Jackson, a Publix employee. We agree that Publix, the employer, is entitled to immunity under section 440.11 because the employer’s conduct was not virtually certain to produce injury or death, thus failing to meet the statutory exception to immunity....
...After extensive discovery, both defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Publix argued that Boston could not “establish the extremely high burden required to overcome the workers’ compensation immunity afforded Publix under the 2003 amendments to Section 440.11.” The parties filed extensive affidavits and depositions in support and opposition to the motion....
...mpensation for work related injuries but in return is precluded from bringing a common-law negligence action. The employer is provided immunity from common law negligence suits by the employee. See Turner v. PCR, Inc.,
754 So.2d 683, 686 (Fla.2000). Section
440.11, Florida Statutes, provides the limitations on immunity for employers: *657 The liability of an employer ......
...e, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11(l)(b)2., Fla....
...rnmental entities.
833 So.2d at 868 (emphasis added). The court correctly entered summary final judgment on behalf of Publix. Publix was entitled to statutory immunity for the accident. The standard for immunity is different for the employee, Ramos. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, provides: The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when the employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 811802, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3493
...vor the appellee, Cornn International, in a civil action for damages upon the death of Mr. Villalta. In the summary judgment the trial court properly ruled that to avoid the statutory immunity from suit provided in the Workers’ Compensation Law at section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, the appellant was required to establish that Cornn International committed an intentional tort....
...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....
...While engaged in the drywall employment as described above, Mr. Villalta fell from a scaffold and sustained fatal injuries. The appellant filed a civil suit for damages naming several defendants, including Cornn International which then asserted its immunity from suit granted by section 440.11(1). An exception to the statutory immunity applies if an intentional tort was committed. See § 440.11(l)(b), Fla....
...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....
...y section
440.10(1), including the section
440.10(l)(e)2. provision for gross negligence. See Amorin v. Gordon,
996 So.2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The immunity for subcontractors within a vertical relationship, as in the present case, is governed by section
440.11(1), with the section
440.11(l)(b) intentional tort exception....
...Because the evidence submitted by the appellant in this case does not support an intentional tort, and because Cornn International 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. does not apply in this situation, and the summary judgment in this civil suit was properly entered for *954 Cornn International, in accordance with section
440.11(1)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 595921
...Second, as mentioned above, the contractor is still required to provide coverage for all employees working on its job site. Third, if a contractor does not have adequate coverage, the Legislature has provided specific remedies for an injured worker. For example, section 440.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), allows Claimant to bring a claim against P & G Roofing under either workers' compensation law or in tort....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8444
...mpensation benefits at the expense of the federal government. The Florida Workers’ Compensation Act bars employees from commencing tort actions against their employers. Instead, benefits are awarded under a statutory compensation scheme. Fla.Stat. § 440.11....
...Burger Place,
416 So.2d 856 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982); Lee v. Florida Pine & Cypress,
157 So.2d 513 (Fla.1963). Consequently, BRITTON is barred from asserting a claim against the USA in this matter because of the immunity of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act. Fla. Stat. §
440.11 ....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3547
...ng failure of defendants to secure the payment of compensation or to qualify themselves as self-insurers under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Law and charging defendants with negligence in several particulars resulting in the injury. Section 440.11, Florida Statutes 1959, F....
...apter 440, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., commonly known as the Workmen’s Compensation Law, is precluded from prosecuting this action in the circuit court. The question must be answered in the affirmative. Appellant correctly asserts that in construing Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., we must consider the Workmen’s Compensation Law (F.S....
...for relief, to have a go at it in the other forum. We must reject that contention. There is an obvious distinction between the situation contemplated by the mentioned provision of F.S.
440.19(4), F.S.A. and that with which we are confronted under F.S.
440.11, F.S.A. Section
440.19(4) operates to preserve to the employee the rights and benefits to which he is entitled in the light of the employer’s qualification and coverage under the Workmen’s Compensation Law,' while Section
440.11 affords the employee, or his personal representative where death ensues, and where the employer has failed to secure payment of Workmen’s Compensation benefits as required by law, the very important right to elect — take a choice ...
...The logic of this rule is so obvious as not to require elaboration. The word “elect” is defined by Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, as meaning “to select; to determine by choice; to decide upon; to choose.” As used in F.S. Sec. 440.11, F.S.A., it cannot be said that the legislature intended to afford one in the position of the plaintiff in this cause the right to litigate in successive tribunals to the end that being unsuccessful in the first, he may prevail in the second....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4551, 2016 WL 1165423
...Kimberly Mathis (Mathis) appeals a final summary judgment entered in her negligence suit against Sacred Heart Health System, Inc. (Sacred Heart). 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....
...After receiving worker’s compensation benefits from Coverall, Mathis filed suit against Sacred Heart alleging negligence. The trial court granted Sacred Heart’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Sacred Heart, as Mathis’ statutory employer, was immune from civil liability under 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...
...If the undisputed material facts in the record are sufficient to establish that Sacred Heart had a contractual obligation to provide cleaning services for its patients and that it subcontracted such work to Coverall, then it is entitled to the worker’s compensation immunity of section 440.11(1)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...2d 850, 853 (Fla. 1992), wherein the Florida Supreme Court held that
an employee who had received workers' compensation benefits had elected an
exclusive remedy and was estopped from bringing a common law claim against his
employer. See Fla. Stat. §440.11(1) (2002) (providing that workers' compensation
11
benefits are "exclusive and in place of all other liability"); Thornber v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9531, 2015 WL 3875442
...of Insurance Agents, Inc.; The
Florida Restaurant and Lodging Assn., Inc.; and the Florida A.G.C. Council, Inc.,
as amici curiae.
Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.
SALTER, J.
The State of Florida appeals a final summary judgment determining that
section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2014), the “exclusiveness of liability” provision
of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law that immunizes from suit an employer
and its employees for covered, work-related injuries, is facially unconstitutional
under the United States and Florida Constitutions....
...In the process, the
case lost (1) the essential elements of a justiciable “case or controversy,” (2) an
2
identifiable and properly-joined defendant, and (3) a procedurally proper vehicle
for the trial court’s assessment of the constitutionality of section 440.11.
A....
...Cortes’s claim by Velda Farms and its insurer.
Velda Farms denied the allegations of the complaint1 and asserted numerous
affirmative defenses, including workers’ compensation immunity. To this point,
no party had raised an issue relating to the constitutionality of section 440.11.
1 Velda Farms initially moved to dismiss the complaint based upon the immunity
conferred by section 440.11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law....
...wife’s loss of consortium claim.
3
In 2012, Mr. and Mrs. Cortes filed an amended complaint including new
allegations and an additional (fourth) count seeking a declaratory judgment that
sections
440.092 and
440.11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law are facially
unconstitutional or are unconstitutional as applied to Mr....
...5
Plaintiff’s compliance with Rule 1.071 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.” The
trial court nonetheless directed that the action be recaptioned “In re: An Action for
Declaratory Judgment seeking a judgment that s.440.11 Fla....
...es. The court concluded that “the
Florida Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended effective October 1, 2003, does
not provide a reasonable alternative remedy to the tort remedy it supplanted. It
therefore cannot be the exclusive remedy. §440.11 is constitutionally infirm and
invalid.” This appeal followed.
II....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 93 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2909, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15726
...eduction, Section 3 appropriates the amount of Workmen’s Compensation an employee is entitled to receive for permanent partial disability after he returns to his employment. “The liability of the City to the injured employee was fixed by Chapter
440.11,
440.12 and
440.15, Florida Statutes; and the City could not require the employee to waive his right to compensation for permanent partial disability (Chapter
440.21) or appropriate it as a creditor (Chapter
440.22)....
...able 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. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
...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....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3107329, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 9841
...Tsafatinos’ third-party complaint was not barred by workers’ compensation immunity. Sunspan Engineering & Construction Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co.,
310 So.2d 4 (Fla.1975), is controlling. In Sunspan, the Florida Supreme Court held that section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law, was unconstitutional as applied to bar a third-party plaintiffs common law action for indemnification against a negligent employer who paid its injured employee workers’ compensation benefits. Id. at 7-8 . Thus, a third party’s claim for common law indemnification against a negligent employer is not barred by section
440.11(1). Id.; see also L.M. Duncan & Sons, Inc. v. City of Clearwater,
478 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla.1985); Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. v. Paul N. Howard Co.,
721 So.2d 1254, 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Further, section
440.11(1) is also unconstitutional to the extent that it functions to immunize an employer from liability to a third party where the employer contracted to indemnify the third party for losses resulting from its negligence....
...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....
...We reverse the dismissal of the breach of contract claim to the extent that such dismissal is with prejudice. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ„ Concur. . In count three of the amended complaint, Mrs. Sugas alleged loss of consortium. . See § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1856, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9613
employees who negligently injure their co-employees. §
440.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1978). In answer to a special interrogatory
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3815623, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11616
...(“Master Construction”), finding that Master Construction was covered by workers’ compensation immunity for the personal injuries sustained by Figueroa. We affirm. Figueroa’s action was brought under the intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation immunity as set forth in section 440.11(l)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2009)....
...trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of Master Construction. See Boston,
112 So.3d at 657 (affirming entry of final summary judgment on workers’ compensation immunity, noting that the intentional tort exception set forth in section
440.11(l)(b)2....
...t in injury or death in order to overcome immunity”); List Indus., Inc. v. Dalien,
107 So.3d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting that based on the “stringent” virtual certainty standard required to overcome an employer’s statutory immunity under section
440.11(l)(b)2., the issue of whether the exception is applicable is “amendable to being decided on summary judgment”); see also Vallejos v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 1988838
...[2] In its Second Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment, State Auto claimed the policies did not provide coverage because the decedent was an employee of the insured, who was statutorily immune from suit under the Workers' Compensation Law, sections
440.01 and
440.11, Florida Statutes (1998)....
...The insured moved for summary judgment on its reply in avoidance of the plaintiff's pleading in State Auto's declaratory judgment action. The trial court ultimately ruled that the plaintiff's wrongful death claim against the insured was barred by the workers' compensation statute, section 440.11....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7474, 2017 WL 187395
...When an employee’s injury arises out of the course and scope of her employment, Florida’s Workers’ Compensation is the exclusive remedy for the injury and the employer is provided with immunity from any other liability for the injury. See §§
440.09(1);
440.11, Fla....
...iability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting 'in furtherance of the employer’s business and the injured *1337 employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter.” See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 122, 2006 WL 47466
...ltant. The plaintiffs, Mr. Belance and his wife, Paulette Belance, filed a premises liability negligence action against Holdings in its capacity as the owner of the building. *241 Holdings moved for final summary judgment, asserting that pursuant to section 440.11(3), Florida Statutes (1997), it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity because it served as Foundry's safety consultant and self-insured workers' compensation carrier. The trial court denied Holdings' motion for summary judgment, finding that, as a matter of law, Holdings was not entitled to the statutory immunity found in section 440.11(3). Holdings contends that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment. We disagree. Section 440.11(3), Florida Statutes (1997), provides in part as follows: An employer's workers' compensation carrier, service agent, or safety consultant shall not be liable as a third-party tortfeasor for assisting the employer in carrying out the e...
...for Foundry, Mr. Belance's employer; and 3) as Foundry's self-insured workers' compensation carrier. Had Mr. Belance sued Holdings in its capacity as the employer's safety consultant or workers' compensation carrier, we would agree that pursuant to section 440.11(3), Holdings would be immune from tort liability. However, Holdings was not sued in either of these capacities. Rather, it was sued in its capacity as the owner of the allegedly defective and dangerous premises. Thus, Holdings' reliance on section 440.11(3) is misplaced as section 440.11(3) does not grant immunity to property owners....
...Quantum Resources, Inc.,
750 So.2d 616 (Fla.1999). In Deen, FP & L argued that as a self-insurer, it was a "carrier" as defined by section
440.02(3), Florida Statutes (1991), and therefore, it was immune from suit by a subcontractor's employee under sections
440.11(1) and
440.11(4), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...The alleged acts of negligence for which FP & L is being sued here are in its capacity as the landowner and are not affected by its "carrier" immunity. Deen,
750 So.2d at 621-22. While the instant case and the Deen decision involve different subsections of section
440.11, Florida Statutes, we conclude that the holding and reasoning in Deen are dispositive, and accordingly, affirm the trial court's order denying Holdings' motion for summary judgment....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 91, 1996 Fla. LEXIS 277
context of the exclusive remedy established by section
440.11. Although the court recognized that one of
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 2076, 2010 WL 624138
...r in favor of the appellant, Linwood Varella, upon a finding that Catalfumo is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law. We reverse the finding of the trial court upon the holding that Catalfumo is a statutory employer under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2005), and is therefore entitled to workers' compensation immunity....
...ule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) to be used as a conduit "through which to seek interlocutory appeals of denial of motions for summary judgment on grounds other than workers' compensation immunity"). We find that Catalfumo is a statutory employer as defined in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2005), and, as such, is obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance when the subcontractor *965 does not....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 357, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 449
Jobalia pursuant to the worker’s compensation act (§ 440.-11(1)) prevents it from being liable as Halifax’s
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1407, 2005 WL 320704
...Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation § 65.10 (Desk ed.1999). For employees within the statute's reach, workers' compensation *153 is the exclusive remedy for "accidental injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment." §
440.09(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also §
440.11, Fla....
...acts, the liability of a workers' compensation insurance carrier [3] to an employee, or to anyone entitled to bring suit in the name of the employee, is provided in the Workers' Compensation Act, and is exclusive and in place of all other liability. § 440.11(4), Fla....
...described in this complaint, should generate swift relief in the commission. The courts support the commission in affording it. Sullivan also contends that he sufficiently alleged a cause of action against the insurer for intentionally harming him. Section 440.11(2) provides exceptions to the immunity granted in the case of certain willful assaults and automobile accidents....
...In her claim for battery, Brehm contends that Protegrity Services committed an unlawful and intentional battery upon her by, apparently, allowing Dr. Morgan to perform a wrong-site procedure without her consent. Brehm maintains that she sufficiently alleged a cause of action against the insurer for intentionally harming her. Section 440.11(2) provides exceptions *155 to the immunity granted in the case of certain willful assaults and automobile accidents....
...[3] The Act defines a "carrier" as any person or fund authorized under section
440.38, Florida Statutes (2000), to insure under the law, and includes a self-insurer and a commercial self-insurance fund, authorized under section
624.462, Florida Statutes (2000). See §
440.02(4), Fla. Stat. (2000). [4] Section
440.11(4), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of s....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 408, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 524, 1988 WL 8438
...ompensation insurance in compliance with Chapter 440. Hicks v. Kemp,
79 So.2d 696 (Fla.1955); §
440.06, Fla.Stat. (1983). The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. BOOTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . Section
440.11, Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1225, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 20129, 2010 WL 5391519
...it by the employee, except in cases where “[t]he employer deliberately intended to injure the employee” or “[t]he employer engaged in conduct that the employer knew ... was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee ....” § 440.11(l)(b), Fla....
...Lykes Bros.,
64 So.2d 277, 277-78 (Fla.1953) (citations omitted). In this regard, the Act provides that workers’ compensation “shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability” for “anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from [an] employer ... [for an employee’s] injury or death.” §
440.11(1), Fla....
...Crittenden,
596 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Wiley v. Southeast Erectors, Inc.,
573 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brevard Co. Mental Health Ctr. v. Kelly,
420 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). *337 Apparent Conflict Between the Act and the WQAA Sections 873.313(3) and
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, appear to conflict. Section
440.11(1) makes workers’ compensation the “exclusive” remedy for an employee’s injuries, “in place of all other liability” against his or her employer. Thus, section
440.11(1) would afford General Dynamics workers’ compensation immunity from Plaintiffs’ WQAA claims....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 22970947
...to the presence *892 of other animals around the race track and to make them aware of various every day sights and sounds." They said, as well, that the use of the dog was a "managerial and policy-making decision of the Hartigans," and that they were, therefore, entitled to immunity under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2001)....
...t: Yes, sir. [Goodman's Counsel]: Okay. I understand. Apparently, the lower court decided as a matter of law that the actions of the dog owners in allowing the dog to roam unchecked at the racetrack was sufficient to qualify for immunity pursuant to section 440.11(1). Section 440.11(1) reads in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1968 Fla. LEXIS 2045
...essor 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....
...The second prong to petitioner's argument is that, in fact, there is no vicarious liability asserted herein, but rather respondent Ryder is sued for its own act of negligence as a third party tort-feasor and that the immunity granted Hunt's employer, The Miami Herald, by virtue of Florida Statute
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....
...his employer for personal injuries resulting from the negligent act of the employer or of a fellow servant occurring in the scope of the employment. Thus, petitioner could not sue his employer in this case because of the statutory release. See F.S. Section 440.11, F.S.A....
...therwise. Except where modified by statute, when either a master or a servant being joint tort feasors is released by an injured party, the other tort feasor cannot be sued. * * * Analogously to this principle * * * Since petitioner had, pursuant to Section 440.11, released his employer from suit, petitioner could not sue the owner of the motorcycle as the lessor, since lessor stood with respect to the lessee in any negligence action arising from such relationship as a joint tort feasor....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10746, 2009 WL 2382320
...gives up the right to pursue a common law negligence *911 action against his or her employer. Turner v. 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....
...n with a contractor on the same project or contract work is not liable for the payment of compensation to the employees of another subcontractor or the contractor on such contract work and is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 from any action at law or in admiralty on account of injury to an employee of another subcontractor, or of the contractor, provided that: 1....
...d prove that Zeiger's or Jarrell's own gross negligence was the major contributing cause of Torres-Palacio's injury. If the Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden of proof, then the Appellants are protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provision in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, which states that an employer's liability under the Workers' Compensation Act is "exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to...
...ng sued by injured employees except where 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....
...the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them even though judgment has not been recovered against all or any of them." In Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Smith,
359 So.2d 427 (Fla.1978), the Florida Supreme Court held that section
440.11, Florida Statutes, "precludes an employer from being designated as a person `jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property' as used in the contribution act." Id....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12708, 2015 WL 5023000
...payment of medical and disability benefits for any employee who is injured at work.
§
440.10(1)(a). In exchange, the employer's liability for those benefits is made
"exclusive and in place of all other liability . . . of such employer . . . to the employee." §
440.11(1)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2001
...Compensation Law was inapplicable. No punitive damages were pled and the only justification for a jury instruction on gross negligence under the facts of this case would have been if the Florida Workers' Compensation Law had applied. In such event, Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981), allows for avoidance of the co-employee immunity upon the occasion of gross negligence....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The Grand Bargain of workers’ compensation provides a
great benefit to employers and co-employees in mandating the
statutory benefits provided by workers’ compensation as the
exclusive benefits an employee can receive for accidental injury
from a covered employer. See § 440.11, Fla....
...Citrus Publishing,
Inc.,
725 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the court concluded:
Thus, to permit an employer to deny benefits then
later assert immunity because the employee is entitled
to benefits would be to render this statutory provision [§
440.11, Fla....
...other grounds asserted for premises liability.
Additionally, eliminating compensability for workplace slip
and falls opens the possibility of an injured worker suing fellow
employees. Those fellow employees are currently immune from
suit for negligence under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3848, 2009 WL 1139241
...arty 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 or in admiralty on account of such injury or death." § 440.11(1)....
...ation to those employees. §
440.10(1)(b). Thus, if a contractor subcontracts part of its obligation under the contract, it is a "statutory employer," and both the contractor and the subcontractor are entitled to workers' compensation immunity under section
440.11(1)....
...It is undisputed that absent any allegations that the contracts in this case were invalid, Doug Ross and Central Florida Lumber would be statutory employers and both Doug Ross and Central Florida Lumber would be entitled to workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11(1)....
...Central Florida Lumber suggests three reasons Judge Arnold's ruling is erroneous: (1) section
489.128, which renders a contract unenforceable because the contractor is unlicensed, cannot be applied to void the contract so as to preclude workers' compensation immunity under section
440.11(1); (2) section
489.127(1)(f), which criminalizes contracting without a certificate of authority, cannot be applied to void the contract so as to preclude workers' compensation immunity under section
440.11(1); and (3) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel prohibit Judge Arnold from revisiting Judge Holder's earlier ruling on the issue....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19355
either of the joint venturer general contractors. §
440.11, Fla.Stat. (1975). Cf. Wilson v. Sirkin Building
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 460361
...The crane and its operator were leased from Appellee by Appellant's employer for one day. Appellee moved for summary judgment, claiming its employee was a borrowed servant of Appellant's employer, and thereby immune from suit in tort based on workers' compensation immunity. § 440.11, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16459
...We think there can be no question that the purpose and effect of Fla.Stat. §
440.04, F.S.A., is to empower an exempt employer to voluntarily as *1315 sume the obligations and privileges of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and thereby insulate himself from common law liability pursuant to Fla.Stat. §
440.11, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12064, 1999 WL 707887
...Juliano received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries from the DOC and filed this personal injury action against the DOT for additional damages. The DOT moved for summary judgment on grounds that the workers’ compensation immunity defense involving the “unrelated works” exception found in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2083, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4925, 1989 WL 101248
...at the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellee, Triple R Paving, Inc. contends that even if the evidence was erroneously admitted, Triple R was the statutory employer of appellee *1052 and entitled to immunity under § 440.11, Florida Statutes (1983)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9258, 1996 WL 496161
...This is an appeal pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) from a nonfinal order of the circuit court denying third-party defendant, Walton Dodge’s, motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it is immune from liability pursuant to the workers’ compensation law, Florida Statute 440.11, on the claim for contribution by the third-party plaintiff, H.C....
...The issue presented for review is whether the trial court erred in denying the third-party defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment on the third-party plaintiffs contribution claim based on the employer’s immunity pursuant to Florida Statute 440.11(1) (1993)....
...DePauw sued Hodges Cash & Carry for negligence in the use of the scissors truck. Hodges Cash & Carry then brought a third-party complaint against Walton Dodge for contribution. The third-party defendant, Walton Dodge, moved for summary judgment on the ground that section 440.11(1) grants employers and supervisors immunity from tort actions for work-related injuries....
...ning the liability of an employer for injuries suffered by an employee during the course of employment: [Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy available to an injured employee as to any negligence on the part of that employee’s employer. § 440.11(1)....
...f a third-party tort-feasor, because the workers’ compensation employer and the third person are not under a “common liability” to the injured person. See also Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Thompson Aircraft,
353 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Section
440.11 precludes an employer from being designated a person “jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property” as used in the contribution act....
...VAN NORTWICK, J., concurs. BENTON, J., dissents with written opinion. . In light of our determination that clearly and conclusively there were no disputed issues of material fact and that the motion and order were based on the exclusivity provisions of § 440.11, Fla....
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1996).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
...ared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting. The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings. 2 Section 440.11 (1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 13676, 2014 WL 4344367
PER CURIAM. Although this case reflects a tragic workplace accident that cost Olegario Rin-con his life, there was insufficient evidence that his supervisors acted with culpable negligence within the meaning of section 440.11(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), as is required to remove this case from the ambit of the laws of Worker’s Compensation....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...Schwarz, for
appellees.
Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER, and LOGUE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Although this case reflects a tragic workplace accident that cost Olegario
Rincon his life, there was insufficient evidence that his supervisors acted with
culpable negligence within the meaning of section 440.11(1)(b), Florida Statutes
(2009), as is required to remove this case from the ambit of the laws of Worker’s
Compensation....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14268, 2004 WL 2169014
...Tucker then moved for a directed verdict on the basis that (i) State Farm failed to state a cause of action because it failed to attach a copy of the insurance policy to the complaint, (ii) Tucker was immune from the operations of section
627.7405 under section
440.11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, (iii) State Farm failed to allege a statutory right to reimbursement, and (iv) without a required finding of fault, section
627.7405 was unconstitutional. The trial court entered its final judgment in favor of State Farm, concluding as a matter of law that section
440.11 did not immunize the Appellant from the operation of section
627.7405, accepting and applying the reasoning and holding in American Freight System, Inc....
...2d *359 DCA 2004) (citing Dealers Ins. and certifying conflict with Fla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.,
456 So.2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)), review granted, SC04-387 (Sept. 10, 2004). . The questions are: "A. Is an employer immune under section
440.11, Florida Statutes from suit brought by an insurer under section
627.7405 for reimbursement of personal injury protection benefits paid to an employee of the employer? B....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
dismiss the complaint alleged, inter alia, that §
440.11, which became effective June 19, 1971, prevented
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9435, 1991 WL 188314
...n. We affirm. In Gerentine v. Coastal Securities Systems,
520 So.2d 245 (Fla.1988), the Florida Supreme Court instructed us to reconsider the elements necessary for the Plaintiffs to plead and prove a cause of action for gross negligence pursuant to section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, in light of Streeter v....
...In Gerentine II we pointed out that these elements, apart from being present in Streeter , were consistent with our earlier decision in Weller v. Reitz,
419 So.2d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), in which we defined “gross negligence” for the purposes of section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 11918, 2000 WL 1345867
...of West Palm Beach and Tower Systems South, Inc. f/k/a Casey’s Tower Service (“Tower Systems”) 2 . We disagree with the trial court’s determination that appellants’ claim against Tower Systems was barred by workers’ compensation statute 440.11 and reverse summary judgment as to Tower Systems....
...workers’ compensation immunity. The City cross-claimed against Tower Systems *1186 and both defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted as to both defendants. At the summary judgment hearing, Tower Systems argued that under section 440.11, Florida Statutes, Tower Systems was entitled to summary judgment under the workers’ compensation statutes....
...on Law, codified in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (1993), protects workers and compensates them for injuries occurring in the workplace, without examination of fault in the causation of injury. See Turner v. PCR, Inc.,
754 So.2d 683, 686 (Fla.2000). Section
440.11 protects employers from liability beyond the benefits of workers’ compensation for injuries except in certain limited situations....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13276, 2016 WL 4607535
...also appeals the final judgments along
with Wert and Rubber Applications.
-2-
employment" and that "[a]ny immunity asserted by the [d]efendants is subject to the
unrelated works exception contained within [section]
440.11(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....
...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....
...Bd. of Brevard Cty.,
888 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2004)). An employer is liable
for compensating an employee who suffers an accidental injury or death arising out of
work performed in the course and scope of employment. See §§
440.09, .10.
"[S]ection
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," and "[t]he immunity afforded to the employer under section
440.11(1) also
extends to 'each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in
furtherance of the employer's business.' " Aravena, 928 So....
..."However, this
coemployee immunity does not apply . . . 'to employees of the same employer when
each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned
primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment.' " Id. (quoting §
440.11(1)). 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...
...liable
for the payment of compensation to the employees of
another subcontractor or the contractor on such contract
work and is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability
provisions of s. 440.11 from any action at law or in admiralty
on account of injury to an employee of another
subcontractor, or of the contractor, provided that:
1....
...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)....
...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....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14605, 2014 WL 4648522
...While the decedent was tightening a wire attached to one of the columns, the column fell on him, causing his death. Appellees sued R.L. Haines, arguing that the facts of this case fall within the intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation immunity, as set forth in section 440.11(l)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2010)....
...stantially certain to result in injury or death.” Id. at 687 (second emphasis added) (quoting Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co.,
498 So.2d 882, 883 (Fla.1986)). As a result of Turner , the Legislature amended the exception language by enacting section
440.11(1)(b) in 2003. Among other things, the amendment narrowed the exception standard by changing from the “substantially certain” standard identified in Turner to a “virtually certain” standard. 2 *531 Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, sets forth exceptions to an employer’s workers’ compensation immunity....
...e, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11(1), Fla....
...Dalien,
107 So.3d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), an employee operating a press brake (a large machine used to cut, bend and shape steel) sustained injuries resulting in the amputation of a significant portion of his dominant hand. After the court found that the section
440.11(l)(b)2....
...rham , an employee was significantly injured when the wind caused a wall he was lifting with a crane to move while the employee’s arm was wrapped around a tag line attached to the wall. Id. at 630-31 . The employee sued the employer, asserting the section 440.11(1)(b)2....
...he warehouse dock pad. The employee was not visible to the tractor’s operator and the trailer’s backup alarm was inoperable. Id. at 655 . Citing List Industries, the Fourth District found the virtual certainty standard had not been met, thus the section 440.11(1)(b)2....
...Boston,
112 So.3d at 658 (quoting Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc. v. Reeves,
833 So.2d 857, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). In this case, virtual certainty of the decedent’s death may not be inferred either from R.L. Haines’s conduct or from the fatal injuries the decedent sustained. The standard set forth in section
440.11(l)(b)2....
...t conduct, the verdicts cannot stand. 8 REVERSED. EVANDER, J., concurs. COHEN, J., dissents with opinion. . It was undisputed that R.L. Haines was the decedent’s "statutory employer” entitled to qualified immunity pursuant to sections
440.10 and
440.11, Florida Statutes (2010)....
...As a result of Appellees’ failure to establish that the decedent’s death was "virtually certain” within the meaning of section 440.1 l(l)(b)2., we do not discuss R.L. Haines's contentions that Appellees failed to establish the other elements required by section 440.11(1 )(b)2.
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13736, 2004 WL 2071213
...dgment, arguing that reversal of the order is warranted because the trial court should have concluded that Sonic was immune from suit based upon the inapplicability of the intentional torts exception to the workers’ com *740 pensation statute. See § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8818, 1994 WL 497831
...The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, on the ground that workers’ compensation was Hawkins’ exclusive remedy. Appellants then sought leave to file a third amended complaint, alleging that Cordy was not acting within a managerial or policy-making capacity within the meaning of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1993), and thus was not immune from tort liability. The trial court denied the motion. Section 440.11(1), as amended in 1988, extends the employer’s immunity from liability for gross negligence to employees who act in a managerial or policymaking capacity: The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any so...
...ctor, supervisor, or other person who in the course and scope of his duties acts in a managerial or policymaking capacity and the conduct which caused the alleged injury arose within the course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties.... § 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....
...When the employee stands in the employer’s shoes, i.e., acts in a managerial or policymaking capacity, that employee receives the same immunity granted to an employer. Likewise, in Madaffer v. Managed Logistics Systems, Inc.,
601 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the court construed section
440.11 as requiring a factual inquiry in a suit for gross negligence regarding whether the manager and foreman held “managerial or policy-making positions”....
...and remanded for further proceedings. At the least, the trial court should have permitted appellants to file their third amended complaint, which specifically alleged that Cordy was not in a managerial or policymaking position within the meaning of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1993)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21003
As to claimant’s constitutional attack on Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1978), providing that liability
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2134, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4974, 1989 WL 104042
...The trial court dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend, but the plaintiff elected to stand on the complaint as written. We entirely agree with the trial judge that the second amended complaint does not allege facts sufficient to show gross negligence within the meaning of section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1985) as construed in Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268 (Fla.1987). 1 Affirmed. . We reject appellees’ alternative contention that the 1988 amendment to section
440.11(1) has application to this 1985 accident....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 174511
...Section 440.571 is a self-insurance provision in the workers' compensation statute. This section authorizes self-insuring utilities to provide coverage for employees of subcontractors. It facilitates utilities' compliance with the requirements of the immunity provision of the workers' compensation *756 statute. Section 440.11, Fla. Stat., (1989). Section 440.11, and its preamble, requires that in order to gain immunity, a) the self-insured public utility must be legally obligated to provide insurance coverage; b) it must in fact provide adequate coverage; and c) the work performed must be on or adjacent to the utility's property. Thus, if at the time of the accident: a) FPL had a contractual obligation to provide coverage; b) if it did provide coverage; and c) if the work was done on FPL's property, then section 440.11 provides immunity from negligence suits....
...Huwer ,
508 So.2d at 490. In Florida Power & Light Co. v. Huwer , FPL had no legal duty to provide coverage before or at the time of the accident, although it did provide coverage in fact after the accident. Accordingly, in Huwer, FPL did not meet the prong of
440.11 which requires a legal duty to provide coverage at the time of the accident....
...Here, we find that Cartier's injury occurred during his regular employment on FPL's premises. We also find that FPL assumed a contractual duty to provide coverage before any accident, and in fact provided such coverage at the time of the accident. Thus, because FPL met all prongs of section 440.11, Cartier is foreclosed from a tort action against FPL....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14875, 2015 WL 5828256
...and Active Staffing of Hialeah, LLC. While cleaning a saw used to cut scrap metal
at a plant owned and operated by Arch, Fernandez’s left hand was severed.
Fernandez sued both Arch and Active Staffing under the exception to worker’s
compensation immunity located in section 440.11(1)(b), Florida Statues (2009),
which allows for liability “[w]hen an employer commits an intentional tort that
causes the injury or death of the employee.” The trial court entered a final
summary judgment for both employers....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21301
applicability of the exclusive liability provision of section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1981). This argument fails
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21320
...Floran,
394 So.2d 994 (Fla.1981); Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Smith,
359 So.2d 427 (Fla.1978); Walker and LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan,
344 So.2d 239 (Fla.1977). Punitive damages are not allowed, as an employer’s liability under the Act is in lieu of all other liability. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7463, 1990 WL 142510
...The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellees. Where a worker’s compensation matter is litigated before a deputy commissioner and adjudicated against a party’s contention, and that party does not seek review of the deputy commissioner’s order, the order becomes final and section 440.11, Florida Statutes and estoppel by judgment apply to bar suit in circuit court....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 619885
...Mann, Sr., arising out of Mann's injury incurred while working at P & G's industrial plant. Characterizing the issues raised here as matters of first impression in Florida, P & G asks this court to answer the question whether an otherwise unimmune owner can obtain the immunity protection of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991) [2] from civil suit brought by the employee of an independent contractor in circumstances where (i) the owner contractually requires the contractor/employer of the injured employee to maintain workers' compensa...
...P & G filed a motion for summary judgment relying upon the affidavit of its senior legal counsel, David L. Grayson, in which Grayson noted the above provisions of the agreement. P & G contended it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity from civil suit as a matter of law 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 of an employee so long as the requisite workers' compensation insurance coverage is secured....
...er 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....
...Subsequent to the trial court's order below, the Florida Supreme Court has reaffirmed the rule of Jones that "only where an owner assumes the role of contractor and employer and, consequently, the duty to provide workers' compensation benefits, is the owner entitled to workers' compensation immunity" under section 440.11....
...limited to a statutorily imposed liability. Relying upon the supreme court's decision in Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc.,
605 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1992), P & G contends that under Mandico an otherwise unimmune "entity" brings itself within the safeguards of section
440.11 when it procures workers' compensation coverage for the benefit of another, if the covered party actually claims that coverage....
...The Mandico court interpreted section
440.04, Florida Statutes (1983), as granting an employer, which has in its "employ" an individual who is not included within the definition of "employee" under section
440.02(13) by virtue of being an independent contractor, the ability to obtain section
440.11 immunity by procuring workers' compensation benefits for such individual....
...one who is *341 excluded or exempted from the operation of the Law to voluntarily assume the obligations and privileges of the Workers' Compensation Law in relation to that individual and thereby insulate itself from common law liability pursuant to section 440.11....
...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. Because we hold that P & G is not immune under section
440.11 since it is not an "employer" or "general contractor," Mandico,
605 So.2d at 852; Jones,
72 So.2d at 287; Ramos,
655 So.2d at 90, we find it unnecessary to reach the further issues of whether the contractual arrangement between P & G a...
...See e.g., Lowry v. Logan,
650 So.2d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). AFFIRMED. WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. 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....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22721
WIGGINTON, Judge. Claimant Hume appeals the deputy commissioner’s order dismissing with prejudice Hume’s claim for benefits because he had elected to maintain an action at law for damages on account of his injury, pursuant to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981)....
...sion of Workers’ Compensation. Upon the final disposition of his civil cause of action by the summary judgment, Hume pursued his workers’ compensation claim. The Thomasons successfully defended on the basis that Hume had elected his remedy under section 440.11(1) by way of the action at law, and was thus *442 precluded from thereafter pursuing his claim. We agree. Section 440.11(1) provides that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee, ..., may elect to claim compensation under this chapter or to maintain an action at law ......
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ion
440.10(1)(b) because
it sublet to Bellorin’s employer, APS, its contractual obligation to provide
valet services to unit owners. As such, the association claimed it was entitled
to workers’ compensation immunity from civil liability under section
440.11,
Florida Statutes (2021)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2221
provided by the workers’ compensation law, section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1993), we affirm the
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4568050
...Beckham & Beckham, Pamela Beckham and Robert Beckham, Miami, for appellees. Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ. WELLS, J. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., (herein "Arden"), appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment, wherein it argued workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2004)....
...th "SUAVE SHOE CORP and ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC., owed a duty to Plaintiff *420 CARLOS SALDANA and to the general public to keep their premises in reasonably safe condition." Arden thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment asserting immunity under section 440.11(1), which in pertinent part provides: The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...rty tortfeasor and to the employee ... except as follows; (a) If an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter.... (b) When an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee.... § 440.11(1), Fla....
...3d DCA 2006), Saldana may maintain a negligence action against Arden as landowner "for having a dangerous condition of their [sic] property that is separate and apart from the Plaintiffs' Workers Compensation Claim against its employer"; (2) Arden is "not entitled to workers' compensation immunity under Florida Statute Section 440.11(3)"; and (3) fact issues exist regarding the ownership of the property where Plaintiff was injured. Although it appears that neither Belance [1] nor section 440.11(3), Florida Statutes (2004) [2] applies here, the trial court's conclusion that fact issues exist regarding ownership of this property (notwithstanding dismissal of the only other *421 party alleged to have an ownership interest), [3]...
...The instant appeal is therefore dismissed without prejudice to Arden filing a renewed motion for summary judgment. Appeal dismissed. NOTES [1] Belance involved a third party parent corporation, not an employer corporation, and concluded that the immunity conferred by section 440.11(3) on that third-party parent corporation stemming from that parent's activities as a safety consultant or insurance carrier did not insulate the third-party parent corporation from premises liability: As Holdings admits, it has "worn...
...for Foundry, Mr. Belance's employer; and 3) as Foundry's self-insured workers' compensation carrier. Had Mr. Belance sued Holdings in its capacity as the employer's safety consultant or workers' compensation carrier, we would agree that pursuant to section
440.11(3), Holdings would be immune from tort liability. However, Holdings was not sued in either of these capacities. Rather, it was sued in its capacity as the owner of the allegedly defective and dangerous premises. Thus, Holdings' reliance on section
440.11(3) is misplaced as section
440.11(3) does not grant immunity to property owners. Belance,
922 So.2d at 241. [2] Section
440.11(3) of the Florida Statutes applies to third-party tortfeasor insurance carriers and safety consultants, not to employers like Arden: An employer's workers' compensation carrier ......
...liability servicing contract. [3] See Percy v. Falcon Fabricators, Inc.,
584 So.2d 17, 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (acknowledging that the "dual persona" status of a successor corporation, may in certain instances result in avoidance of the application of section
440.11(1)); see also Griffin, Inc....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11529, 1997 WL 634125
...The appellees responded by presenting a common argument to the trial court in support of dismissal of Dr. Chiang’s contribution claim. The sole thrust of their argument *1086 was that because Kitschke had elected the remedy of workers’ compensation benefits they were immunized from liability under the terms of section 440.11(1), which provides in pertinent part that “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...were of a nature so substantially certain to result in injury that these acts amounted to gross negligence.” Id. at 103. The department alleged, therefore, that because of Whitehurst’s gross negligence it was “not immune from an action for contribution under Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, providing for the exclusive liability of an employer to an employee.” Id....
...In upholding the dismissal, the court in Whitehurst also relied on well-settled Florida law that to support an action for contribution under section
768.31(2)(a), the pleading must allege common liability but that such common liability cannot exist where the employer is immunized under section
440.11(1)....
...In the face of this standard, the court concluded in Whitehurst that because the department’s allegations did not “rise to the level of an intentional tort or virtual certainty of injury or death[,]” the complaint was insufficient to overcome Whi-tehurst’s immunity under section 440.11(1)....
...Assuming the truthfulness of its allegations and attached exhibits, the complaint clearly establishes that at the time of the accident Kitschke was not within the course and scope of his employment thus precluding the invocation of the immunity provisions of section
440.11(1) at this stage of the proceedings to bar Dr. Chiang’s contribution claim. Our conclusion flows from our decision in Wishart v. Laidlaw Tree Service, Inc.,
573 So.2d 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In that case, we restated the fundamental proposition embodied in section
440.11 that....
...a.1985). In line with this conclusion, we must necessarily reject the appellees’ argument that under Whitehurst the only circumstance in which a third-party contribution claim against an employer will lie so as to overcome the immunity provided in section 440.11(1) is if the third-party tortfeasor alleges that the employer either exhibited a deliberate intent to injure the employee or engaged in conduct which was substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee....
...th did not occur within the course and scope of employment would be sufficient to state a cause of action in contribution because such an allegation, if true, would preclude the application of the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation found in section
440.11(1). Accordingly, if a third-party tort-feasor can legally circumvent the immunity provisions of section
440.11(1) and establish an employer’s “common liability” for contribution under section
768.31(2)(b) by sufficiently alleging that an employer’s acts resulting in injury to an employee during the course of employment rose to the level...
...art and Velez . Furthermore, in our view, the result reached in Whitehurst must be analyzed within the specific factual context of that case. As noted, the Department of Transportation’s attempt to overcome the employer’s immunity established by section 440.11(1) was based on a theory that the employer exhibited acts of gross negligence resulting in injury to the employee while the employee was clearly engaged in work-related activities and not on a theory that the injury did not occur within the course of employment, an approach which Dr....
...It may very well come to pass that the appellees will be able to establish that Kitschke was in fact injured in the course of his employment, notwithstanding the contrary position they espoused in the workers’ compensation proceeding. If so, they would then be entitled to immunity under the provisions of section 440.11(1) and Dr....
...employee, unless the employee was engaged in a special errand or mission for the employer." . The Fund, as the workers’ compensation carrier, and PCA, as the servicing agent, enjoy the same immunity from liability as does the employer Wildcat. See § 440.11(3)....
...Whitehurst & Sons, Inc.,
636 So.2d 101, 105 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied,
645 So.2d 456 (Fla. 1994), for the proposition that "common liability" for a third-party contribution claim cannot exist under section
768.31 (2)(a) where the employer is immunized under section
440.11(1)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 16106
action against said employer was precluded by Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977). The right of an
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 149, 1992 WL 289367
...First, they denied that they were negligent and caused Penton’s injury. Then, pleading alternatively, they alleged that their negligence, if any, constituted a common law tort, rather than a maritime tort, the recovery for which was barred by Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law, Fla.Stat. § 440.11(1) (1987)....
...vity. Without such a nexus between the alleged wrong and traditional maritime activity, Penton’s claim cannot constitute a maritime tort and, consequently, it is not immune from the preclusive effect of Florida’s workers’ compensation statute, section 440.11(1)....
...om Pompano’s insurer. 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....
...sor 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 or in admiralty on account of such injury or death.... Fla.Stat. § 440.11(1) (1987). Because section 440.11(1) foreclosed whatever common law tort claims Penton had against Pompano, Futch, and Futch Leasing, Penton did not, in his complaint, present a common law tort claim against them; rather, he sued them under the maritime law which, he contended, would not give effect to the preclusive provision of Florida’s workers’ compensation statute, section 440.11(1)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Mundy,
81 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1955) (citations
omitted). 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....
...1993), that context matters.
The question before this Court is not whether Gladden, as an “employee,” is eligible
to make a claim for workers’ compensation benefits as a result of his on-the-job
accident. The question is whether Appellees qualify for tort immunity under section
440.11.
In Weber, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined to apply the section
440.02 definition of “employee,” which refers to “those persons who are entitled to
file claims under the Workers’ Compensation Law,” to ...
...The
injured worker made a claim for and received worker’s compensation benefits from
Preferred Enterprise Signs, but also filed a negligence action against Weber as a
result of his injuries. Id. Weber defended against the action based on the immunity
provisions in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1983)....
...kes sense that
there is a risk associated with the benefit.
III.
Gladden’s exemption from workers’ compensation coverage does not equate
to his ability to circumvent the immunity protections of section
440.11, except as
provided by section
440.075....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17353, 2004 WL 2600508
...East Coast employed appellee, Timothy Barker, as a construction worker. 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....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11444, 1992 WL 332688
...air; (2) providing the employer and Litton with a defective unit; and (3) failing to have warning signs on the *909 unit indicating the proper method of operation. Saf-T-Green raised as an affirmative defense that it enjoyed immunity from suit under section 440.11, Florida Statutes and then moved for partial summary judgment asserting worker’s compensation immunity....
...er’s compensation statutes. The central rationale of Smith is that leased equipment used on a job site in effect has become the working tool of the employer. Id. at 424 . Thus the exclusivity principle of worker’s compensation comes to bear. See § 440.11, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11388, 1991 WL 231773
...This is a timely appeal of a worker’s compensation order awarding wage loss benefits. We affirm. The judge of compensation claims correctly determined that the claimant’s personal representative may file a claim for benefits which accrued prior to the claimant’s death. We reject the employer/carrier’s argument that section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, limits the class of persons who may file a claim. Section 440.11 provides that the liability of an employer under chapter 440 is exclusive and that an employer is immune from all other liability....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2014 WL 5836805
...e compensability of the underlying
claim.
The Florida Workers’ Compensation Law, as set forth in Chapter 440,
establishes the liability of an employer thereunder as exclusive and in place of all
other liability to an injured employee. § 440.11, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5968
...ut prejudice to plaintiff to amend, and remanding the cause for further proceedings, said: “Inasmuch as the decision of the district court is limited solely to the procedural issue discussed above, we do not reach the question of whether Fla.Stat. § 440.11, F.S.A., provides defendants, or either of them, with immunity from liability due to the exclusive remedy of that statute....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6225, 2010 WL 1792681
...cular inmate who injured Mr. Smith. Consequently, Mr. Smith was unaware of the risk of danger as to the inmate and was unable to exercise informed judgment as to whether to perform his assigned duties. The allegations closely tracked the language in section 440.11(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), which contains an exception to the requirement that workers' compensation be the exclusive remedy for work-related injury or death....
...e, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11(1)(b)2., Fla....
...Smith's safety, conduct for which, under section
768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes, the state has not waived sovereign immunity. We find the lower court's ruling correct under Elliott v. Dugger,
579 So.2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). There, we stated that even if, as provided by section
440.11(1)(b), a complaint alleges conduct by a public employer which is virtually certain to cause injury or death, the "suit would be barred by section
768.28(9)(a), which makes the state immune from suit for acts of employees committed in bad faith, or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property." Id. at 830-31. Unfortunately, this case, like Dugger, is one in which the provisions of sections
440.11(1) and
768.28(9)(a) conflict, and when that occurs "it is the provisions of section
768.28(9)(a) which control." Id....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6796
entitled to the benefit of the immunity provided by §
440.11, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. As to the architect, the contract
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13403
...Pe-tersburg Beverage, on four counts of negligence following an assault on Plaintiff. 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....
...Rule 1.110(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Davis v. Sun First Nat. Bank of Orlando,
408 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The amended complaint does not contain any allegations regarding worker’s compensation insurance coverage. The exclusionary provision of Section
440.11, is an affirmative defense and cannot be raised by a motion to dismiss....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Ten months later, Hilbert’s estate sued the nightclub in
Florida state court. One wrinkle for the estate was that the Florida
worker’s compensation statute generally prohibits employees from
bringing tort claims against their employers. See Fla. Stat.
§ 440.11(1)....
...nightclub’s actions triggered a statutory exception for intentional
torts. It alleged that the nightclub had engaged in conduct that it
“knew”—based on similar incidents in the past—“was virtually
certain to result in injury or death to the employee.” See id.
§ 440.11(1)(b).
Both the estate’s tort action and James River’s federal
declaratory judgment action thus required a decision on whether
the Florida worker’s compensation statute applied to Hilbert....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4720, 1991 WL 82527
...Fisher; Lawton. 1 There is no showing of conduct by Cachur-ra Corporation which would reach the level of an intentional act. Ruben Rodriguez, as president of Cachurra, was a coemployee of the decedent. Streeter v. Sullivan,
509 So.2d 268 (Fla.1987). 2 Under section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1985), a coemployee loses his statutory immunity if he acts with gross negligence, unprovoked aggression or with willful and wanton disregard of the interests of the victim....
...Arrow Air, Inc.,
568 So.2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), but that case does not change the rule of Fisher and Lawton . . As the accident occurred in 1986, the rule announced in Streeter is applicable to this case. The statute has since been amended. See §
440.11, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 13775
...motion for summary judgment, the question is whether the defendant was a "third party tortfeasor" within the meaning of F.S.
440.39(1). In the event defendant is not a third party tortfeasor under the above mentioned statute then the provisions of F.S.
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"....
...ts, 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.
440.11, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7157, 2011 WL 1879199
BENTON, C.J. Ivy Fossett appeals the final summary judgment entered against her in a negligence action she brought against Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC (SET). We affirm. The trial court ruled that SET had immunity from suit under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2006)....
...Fossett also sued SET alleging SET’s negligence was responsible for her injury, SET moved for summary judgment. SET argued that, because it had contracted with Adecco to supply Ms. Fos-sett and other temporary employees to work for SET, SET was immune under section 440.11(2) from liability for simple negligence to any Adecco employee injured doing SET’s work. Section 440.11 provides, in relevant part: (1) The liability [for workers’ compensation benefits] of an employer prescribed in s....
...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. §
440.11, Fla....
...The OSHA standard in effect on the date the statute was enacted controls. See State v. Camil,
279 So.2d 832, 834 (Fla.1973) (holding that a statute cannot prospectively incorporate by reference subsequently enacted federal law or subsequently adopted federal administrative rules). On the date section
440.11(2) took effect— October 1, 1989, see ch....
...At issue here, too, is the legal power or right to control the details of the work of the “borrowed servant.” See Hazealeferiou v. Labor Ready,
947 So.2d 599, 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“In Florida, the [borrowed servant] doctrine’s specific application to employee leasing arrangements is embodied in section
440.11(2)”); Derogatis v....
...Fawcett Mem’l Hosp.,
892 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A special employer may be immune from suit on the basis of the common law special employment relationship that is premised on the borrowed-employee doctrine or on the basis of the statutory special employment relationship, §
440.11(2).”). The “general supervision” section
440.11(2) contemplates, in incorporating OSHA Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363, is the legal power to direct the details of the work of the help supply services company employee....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20749
CURIAM. Affirmed on the basis and authority of section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981); Chorak v. Naughton
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 2131497, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7023
...Worker’s Compensation Act because it was acting as appellant’s “special employer.” We conclude that final summary judgment was properly entered because the record conclusively shows that Waste Management was immune from liability pursuant to section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2010), as appellant was an employee of Waste Collections, a help supply services company, as defined in Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363 of the U.S....
...ployed by Waste Collection, the help services contractor, and not GL. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. Affirmed. Gerber and Kuntz, JJ., concur. . Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363 is incorporated through section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: The immunity from liability described in subsection (1) shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which utilizes the services of the employees of a help supply services compa...
...aff, are acting in furtherance of the employer's business. 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. § 440.11(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4767, 1996 WL 252698
...Huell”], Donald J. Guest, Sr. [“Guest”] and Adams and Beagles Roofing Co., Inc. [“the company”] in an action for negligence, gross negligence and culpable negligence. The trial court based its judgment on workers’ compensation immunity. § 440.11, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6661, 2010 WL 1930125
...The separate proceedings were consolidated and, thereafter, CCA moved for summary judgment. Following a hearing, final summary judgment was granted as to CCA. In granting summary judgment, the trial court rejected appellants' argument that the intentional tort exception to employer immunity, section 440.11(1)(b), Florida Statutes, was applicable in the instant case....
...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....
...As for the so-called "unrelated works" exception, it likewise does not apply here. The "unrelated works" exception is unique to Florida. Vause v. Bay Med. Ctr.,
687 So.2d 258, 262 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The Florida Supreme Court has explained the exception, as follows: The immunity afforded to the employer under section
440.11(1) also extends to "each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer's business." However, this coemployee immunity does not apply to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, wit...
...[or] to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. Aravena v. Miami-Dade County,
928 So.2d 1163, 1167 (Fla.2006)(italics removed) (quoting §
440.11(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4430, 1994 WL 176527
...On February 11, 1987, Marta Siria, the plaintiff below, was injured while operating a plastic injection molding machine during the course of her employment with Dynaplast. Siria sued Dynaplast as a result of the accident. Dynaplast moved for summary judgment asserting that it was immune from suit *14 pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1987) because it provided workers' compensation benefits....
...Indeed, workers' compensation is an employee's sole remedy even if the employer is guilty of gross negligence. Id. at 881. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Siria, her Fourth Amended Complaint does not allege conduct rising to the level of an intentional tort sufficient to avoid the exclusivity provision in section 440.11(1). The trial court erred in denying Dynaplast's motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand with directions to grant the motion. Reversed and remanded with directions. NOTES [1] Section 440.11(1) provides that an employer's workers' compensation liability "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability......
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4384, 1996 WL 210842
...The plaintiffs first argued below that Floval was the decedent’s employer, and therefore, owed a duty to provide him with a safe work environment. The trial court correctly recognized that under this theory Flo-val would be immune from liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act, see § 440.11, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2261, 1995 WL 92604
...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....
...If both subcontractor and contractor fail to secure coverage, then the contractor has an employer’s liability to the 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....
...y for common law indemnification. Our decision on this issue renders moot all other issues raised. We deny all motions for attorney’s fees. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF CANDYWORLD. STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . See § 440.11, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 811797, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3497
...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....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...In reply to that affirmative defense, the Camachos alleged that
Camacho and Wert "were assigned primarily to unrelated works within private
employment" and that "[a]ny immunity asserted by the [d]efendants is subject to the
unrelated works exception contained within [section]
440.11(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....
...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....
...Bd. of Brevard Cty.,
888 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2004)). An employer is liable
for compensating an employee who suffers an accidental injury or death arising out of
work performed in the course and scope of employment. See §§
440.09, .10.
"[S]ection
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," and "[t]he immunity afforded to the employer under section
440.11(1) also
extends to 'each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in
furtherance of the employer's business.' " Aravena, 928 So....
..."However, this
coemployee immunity does not apply . . . 'to employees of the same employer when
each is operating in the furtherance of the employer's business but they are assigned
primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment.' " Id. (quoting §
440.11(1))....
...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 subco...
...liable
for the payment of compensation to the employees of
another subcontractor or the contractor on such contract
work and is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability
provisions of s. 440.11 from any action at law or in admiralty
on account of injury to an employee of another
subcontractor, or of the contractor, provided that:
1....
...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)....
...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....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1953 Fla. LEXIS 1181
...486 , answered this question in the affirmative and we think correctly. Appellant contends that it was not the purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to exclude the father from recovering damages for mental pain and suffering in a-case like this, but we think Section 440.11, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 672, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6883
...y advantageous to them from later maintaining civil actions against the employers, see, e.g., Pearson v. Harris and Matthews v. G.S.P. Corporation, and while not doubting the proposition that the compensation remedy is made exclusive by statute, see section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981), we prefer to resolve the issue presented herein as it was resolved by the Superior Court of New Jersey in Tremonte v....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7139
...ent rendered him was done negligently. Defendants assert that since the medical treatment was done and paid for under Section
440.13 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, they share in the immunity from suit which is conferred upon the employer under Section
440.11 of said Act....
...ollowing question to this court: DO PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITAL WHO RENDER MEDICAL SERVICE TO ANY EMPLOYEE UNDER SECTION
440.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT), SHARE IN THE IMMUNITY FROM COMMON LAW SUIT CONFERRED UPON AN EMPLOYER UNDER SECTION
440.11 OF SAID ACT WHERE IT IS ALLEGED IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE EMPLOYEE AGAINST SAID PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITAL THAT SAID SERVICES WERE PERFORMED NEGLIGENTLY AND WHERE THE *725 EMPLOYEE HAS RECEIVED FULL BENEFITS UNDER THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSAT...
...y services relating to the safety of employees. In that case, the service company was made a party-defendant and the trial judge ruled that the immunity from common law tort liability extended to the service company under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 440.11, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 3356
...for review denied,
450 So.2d 487 (Fla.1984); Padgett,
417 So.2d at 764 ; Mozer v. Semenza,
177 So.2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). II. As to the remaining appellees, however, we conclude that summary judgment was properly entered because of the immunity conferred by section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997) of the Worker’s Compensation Law....
...In doing so, we first reject the plaintiffs claim that section
553.84, Florida Statutes (1997), which creates a cause of action for violations of the State Minimum Building Codes, 8 such as were claimed in this case, overcomes or “trumps” the effect of section
440.11....
...1st DCA 1981); Pappas v. Hill-Staton Engineers, Inc., 183 Ga.App. 258 , 358 S.E.2d 625 (1987). B. Although the issue is closer, we also disagree with the contention that the conduct of the employer and general contractor falls within the recognized exception to section 440.11 immunity which arises when, objectively viewed, alleged employer misconduct either ‘exhibit[s] a deliberate intent to injure or ......
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1947
...Benson’s temporary total disability benefits and demanded that he do a “job search” in order to receive his monies. The lower court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss on twin grounds: first, that in light of Sibley v. Adjustco,
596 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1992), section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1993) does not provide immunity for such a claim; second, that the complaint stated a cause of action for the tort of “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” Petitioner seeks prohibition on the basis of s...
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18917
...ng and structural work to appellee Bennett & Pless, Inc. Independent also sub-contracted with decedent’s employer, James Wilson Co. for a portion of the work. The trial court granted summary judgment to each of the appellees on the theory that section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1973), provided the exclusive remedy here, and that each of the appellees was entitled to immunity from tort liability by virtue of the statute....
...e employees of the appellees here are deemed to be employed in one and the 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-contrac...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15728
ground that it is immune from liability pursuant to §
440.11(2), F.S., providing: “(2) An employer’s workmen’s
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 5404, 1994 WL 244221
...Ramos sued Univision, Crown, and Hallmark (the parent corporation of both Univision and Crown), alleging negfigence in fading to provide a safe workplace. The three defendants raised the affirmative defense of immunity from tort liability pursuant to section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1989), and moved for final summary judgment based on workers’ compensation immunity....
...The trial court erred in finding that defendants are not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity, as a property owner who hires a general contractor is considered a statutory employer and is generally entitled to workers’ compensation immunity pursuant to section 440.11....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6747, 1989 WL 65060
...In the case of a statutory employer, the contractor must provide workers’ compensation benefits for its employees as well as for the subcontractor’s workers. Id. A qualified employer’s liability for work-related injuries is limited to providing workers’ compensation benefits. Fla.Stat. Ann. § 440.11(1)....
...This exclusivity applies to all claims arising from the injury, irrespective of whom may bring the action. Id. Within workers’ compensation law, this limitation to one remedy is known as the exclusivity defense. In Florida, employers can assert the exclusivity defense of Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.11(1) only if the Worker’s Compensation Statute mandates a duty to provide benefits....
...o. The government, therefore, cannot be a “contractor” within the meaning of Fla.Stat.Ann. §
440.10(1). The government acted as an owner would in retaining an independent contractor, a situation to which the exclusivity defense of Fla.Stat.Ann. §
440.11(1) is inapplicable....
...Florida does not have a similar provision. Accordingly, while the government would be a statutory employer in Louisiana, it is not in Florida. See Whitney v. United States,
451 F.Supp. 669, 670 (N.D.Fla.1978) (noting this difference). The exclusivity defense of Fla.Stat. Ann. §
440.11(1) is not available to the government....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...outside the four corners of the complaint, which necessarily requires a motion for
summary judgment.”); Eiler v. Camp
12
Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
542 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (stating that “the
exclusivity provision set forth in section
440.11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act
is an affirmative defense which cannot be raised by a motion to dismiss unless the
allegations of a prior pleading in the case demonstrate the existence of such a
defense”); see also Ruiz v....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 6172, 1997 WL 291690
...Roberts sued in a fifteen-count complaint and asserted in the alternative that Ethan was an employee of Cadco or an independent subcontractor. The complaint, under these alternative theories, attempts to avoid the workers’ compensation immunity provided in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991), as to both Cadco and Catanzariti....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 8457
...yee.” Boston
v. Publix Super Mkts. Inc.,
112 So. 3d 654, 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). This
immunity, however, is subject to certain exceptions.
The Estate filed suit against the Contractor under the exception for
intentional torts found in section
440.11(1)(b), Florida Statues (2009), which
allows for liability “[w]hen an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the
injury or death of the employee.” As we have previously held,
The intentional tort exception to wo...
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5104
...al 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. F.S.A. §
440.11 provides that the exclusive remedy of employees injured on a job as a result of the negligence of other employees of a contractor or subcontractor is under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Laws....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20274
subcontractors dependent, and thereby, under Section 440.-11, Florida Statutes (1979), immunize Tilcon from
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...(“If the injured worker refuses
to submit to a drug test, it shall be presumed in the absence of
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary that the injury was
11
occasioned primarily by the influence of drugs.”); § 440.11(1)(b),
Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 8723, 2010 WL 2441027
...*824 not have certiorari jurisdiction to review the order and we dismiss the petition. Dismissed. ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. . The complaint alleged that Tad Humphreys is the president of ISR and that Kirk Suchier is an employee of ISR. . § 440.11, Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14564
...Du-B moved to dismiss appellant’s amended third party complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action in that liability of the third party defendant is limited to the “exclusive remedy” concept as provided by Florida Statute 440.11....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
... immunity from civil tort suits. By statute, the scope of liability for
workplace injuries is “exclusive” and displaces all other forms of
employer liability, excepting only intentional torts and an
employer’s failure to secure workers compensation coverage. See
§ 440.11(1), Fla....
...ereof, 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, except as follows: [listing two exceptions]
Id. § 440.11(1)....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...es' common law negligence
actions for damages arising from work-related injuries."
161 So. 3d 528, 530 (Fla. 5th
2
DCA 2014) (citing Bakerman v. Bombay Co.,
961 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 2007)). However,
section
440.11(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes (2013) creates an exception to workers'
compensation immunity as to employers and employees acting in furtherance of the
employer's business. The statute reads, in relevant part, as follows:
440.11 Exclusiveness of liability.—
(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and
wanton disregard or . . . with gross negligence when such
acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause
such injury or death . . . .
§ 440.11(1)(b)2., Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7745, 1997 WL 375007
...“Based on the materials provided to the court at the hearing ... and the authority cited by plaintiffs, the Defendant[’s] ... Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Defendant is not entitled to workers compensation immunity in this case under Florida Statute § 440.11(1).” It is clear to us that the denial is based on the presence of disputed, triable issues of fact and not because the court has concluded that the workers compensation defense should succeed no matter what plaintiffs prove at trial....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13833
...he negligent employee’s employer. 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....
...t 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....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...ory
scheme unconstitutional. See Cortes v. Velda Farms, No. 11-13661-CA-25,
2014
WL 6685226 at *10 (11th Cir. Ct. Aug. 13, 2014) (“As a matter of law, Chapter
440, effective October 1, 2003[,] is facially unconstitutional as long as it contains §
440.11 as an exclusive replacement remedy.”), overruled for mootness and lack of
standing by State v....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 7884, 1992 WL 153903
PER CURIAM. Chittenden appeals from a final summary judgment which held that Florida Power & Light Company was immune from liability as a “special employer” under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1638, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9147
is blind to corporate status. Nowhere does section
440.11(1) [2] impose upon injured employees a requirement
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida
...ult in injury or death to the decedent." On this premise, the Estate contended the defendants forfeited their ability to invoke workers' compensation immunity under the intentional tort exception of the Florida Workers' Compensation Act set forth at § 440.11(b) (2), Fla....
...Consequently, the Estate alleged that Massaro forfeited the protections of workers' compensation immunity by failing to avoid the commission of criminal law violations in the course of his managerial and policy-making duties undertaken on behalf of the corporation pursuant to § 440.11(1) (b) (2), Fla....
...e course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties and was not a violation of law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days' imprisonment as set forth in s.
775.082. §
440.11(1) (b) (2), Fla....
...his managerial and policy-making duties as an executive officer of 3d Generation, became criminally liable for the commission of OSHA violations resulting in Mr. Sanchez's death and thereby forfeited workers' compensation immunity under operation of § 440.11(1)(b)(2)....
...verage of an employee's negligence claim against an employer which had failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. As to the workers' compensation exclusion, the Third District reasoned that because "[t]he 'employer's liability' is pursuant to section 440.11(1) of the Workers' Compensation Law [deriving from a statutory exception to tort immunity], the employer's "obligation to [the employee] is one 'under a workers' compensation ......
...Pursuant to Rule 58, final summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant shall enter by separate order of the Court. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and terminate all pending motions as MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 6 day of July, 2018. Under Section 440.11(b)(2), Fla....
...Stat., the exclusivity provision of the Florida Workers' Compensation Act is subject to exception when "an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee." This section defines an "intentional tort" to include conduct undertaken with a deliberate intent to injure (§ 440.11(b)(1) ), or, alternatively, "conduct that the employer knew, based on similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee ..."(§ 440.11(b)(2) )....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 6874, 1996 WL 366285
...We affirm the dismissal with prejudice of the estate’s amended complaint for wrongful death against the decedent’s managerial co-employees because the allegations in the complaint do not rise to the level of negligence necessary to overcome the immunity from suit provided by section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14091
...sation system under which the employee trades his tort remedies for a system of compensation without contest, thus sparing him the cost, delay and uncertainty of a claim in litigation. In Iglesia v. Floran,
394 So.2d 994 (Fla.1981), the court upheld section
440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978) against the constitutional attack that it violates the access to courts provision of the Florida Constitution. Section
440.11 grants immunity from tort liability to co-employees, who, while in the course of their employment, negligently injure other employees of the same employer, unless the co-employees act with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11343, 2015 WL 4547180
...Inc.,
112 So. 3d 654, 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). This
immunity, however, is subject to certain exceptions.
5
The Estate filed suit against the Contractor under the exception for
intentional torts found in section
440.11(1)(b), Florida Statues (2009), which
allows for liability “[w]hen an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the
injury or death of the employee.” As we have previously held,
The intentional tort exception to work...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20725
adverse final summary judgment holding that Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1979) bars his cause of
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15338
...rp. and Sirkin Building Corp. referred to in subparagraph e above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW “5. At the time of the accident in question herein there existed a joint venture *464 between the Defendant and 418 Euclid Avenue Corp. “6. The provisions of F.S. 440.11, entitled ‘Exclusiveness of Liability’ bar the Plaintiff from bringing this action....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...The
Fourth District succinctly summarized the concept in Ciceron v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.,
163 So. 3d 609, 612 (Fla. 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....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13952
...ustained under the law as set forth in Morris v. Bryan & Fletcher, Inc.,
373 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and in Greene v. Ivaco Industries, Ltd.,
334 So.2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The immunity provision to which reference is made is found in section
440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1981)....
...he workers’ compensation or employer’s liability coverage. The facts developed may determine the existence or nonexistence of the duty and of the claimed immunity. The dismissal of the complaint with prejudice was error. Reversed and remanded. . Section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides, as follows: (2) An employer's workers’ compensation carrier, service agent, or safety consultant shall not be liable as a third-party tortfeasor for assisting the employer in carrying out the em...
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...4th DCA 2013)
(“Where an employee covered by the workers’ compensation act is injured
7
on the job, the employee’s sole remedy against his employer is through the
provisions of the act. His employer is immune from negligence claims
arising out of the same injury.” (citing § 440.11(1), Fla....
...2000) (“Today we reaffirm our prior decisions recognizing, as have our
district courts and many jurisdictions around the country, that workers’
compensation law does not protect an employer from liability for an
intentional tort against an employee.”), superseded by statute on other
grounds, §
440.11(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003), as noted in R.L. Haines Constr.,
LLC v. Santamaria,
161 So. 3d 528, 530-31 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014); see also
§
440.11(1)(b), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20443
...s and that a portion of this work was subcontracted to D & K by the agreements discussed herein. It contends that under these circumstances Florida law regards it as a statutory employer of Mr. Bryant and therefore entitles it to the immunity of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...s drivers, and RT had no control of them beyond that required by government regulation. Nothing impaired the drivers’ independence. The last contention of RT was that it was a joint employer with D & K and therefore entitled to the immunity of section 440.11....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190808, 2012 WL 12066977
...§
440.09 (1) (“An employer must pay compensation or furnish benefits required by this chapter if the employee suffers an accidental compensable injury or death arising out of work performed in the course and the scope of employment.”); see also Fla. Stat. §
440.11 (1) (providing that workers’ compensation is generally an employee’s exclusive remedy to recover *1258 damages arising from an injury he suffers while performing work during the course and scope of his employment)....
...oyee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. See Fla. Stat. § 440.11 (b)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 8166, 1998 WL 380516
...T TO SECTION 440.571, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991)(NOW SECTION
624.46225, FLORIDA STATUTES (1997)), TO PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COVERAGE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR WORKING ON ITS PROPERTY, OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IMMUNITY PROVIDED IN SECTION
440.11, FLORIDA STATUTES (1991), AS TO INJURIES SUSTAINED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY? THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Section
768.31, Florida Statutes, as amended, Chapter 76-186, Laws of Florida (1976). Under the amended contribution statute, appellants here would be entitled to seek contribution from the decedent's employer, based upon the employer's relative degree of fault, except for the operation of Section
440.11, Florida Statutes. This statute provides immunity in behalf of an employer, as to an employee and any third party tortfeasor, for injuries to the employee covered by workers' compensation benefits. Section
440.11 "precludes an employer from being a designated a person `jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property' as used in the contribution act." Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company v....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 87, 1990 WL 396
...etween two railroad cars on AP & C’s premises. He subsequently filed a negligence suit against AP & C. AP & C moved for directed verdict on the ground that it was a “special employer” and that appellant was a borrowed servant under Section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 46, 2007 WL 5686
...and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work ... § 440.11(l)(b)(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 785, 1992 WL 16018
PER CURIAM. Appellants, Maria G. Guevara and Amado Guevara, her husband, ask us in this appeal to hold that appellee, Frank I. Diehl, a general partner d/b/a Frank Diehl Farms, a partnership, is not entitled under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1985), to employer immunity from liability in a personal injury action....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 396
directly against her employer, as permitted by Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, in that the employer
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
Per Curiam. AFFIRMED . Rowe and Winsor, JJ., concur, Bilbrey, J., concurs with opinion. Bilbrey, J., concurs. I agree affirmance is appropriate. See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
concurs. I agree affirmance is appropriate. See §
440.11, Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110.
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
I agree affirmance is appropriate. See §
440.11, Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110.
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 781, 2006 WL 167838
...For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s final summary judgment in this matter. Affirmed. STEVENSON, C.J. and POLEN, J., concur. . The intentional tort exception to the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provisions was codified by the Florida Legislature in 2003. Fla. Stat. § 440.11 (1) (2003)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 238202, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 925
...In this worker’s compensation immunity case, an employer appeals a $2.7 million jury verdict and final judgment in favor of an employee who suffered an amputation of a significant portion of his dominant hand while operating a piece of machinery. The accident occurred on August 23, 2005, and is controlled by section 440.11(l)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2005)....
...The employee’s activation of the foot pedal while his hand was in the die is the process that caused the injury. The employer contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict since the employee failed to present “clear and convincing evidence” of each of the three indispensible elements in Section
440.11(l)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2005). We agree and reverse. 2003 was an important year in this area of the law. That year, the Florida Legislature effectively overruled the case of Turner v. PCR, Inc.,
754 So.2d 683 (Fla.2000), when it amended Section
440.11 to codify the “intentional tort exception” to an employer’s workers compensation immunity recognized by the Supreme Court in Turner ....
...e, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11, Fla....
...The system is “based on a mutual renunciation of common-law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike.” Bakerman,
961 So.2d at 261 (quoting §
440.015, Fla. Stat. (2006)). A civil personal injury lawsuit by an employee against an employer under section
440.11 was intended to be the rarest of exceptions to the immunity granted to the employer....
...The danger had to have been apparent to the employee. Therefore, the employee did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was not aware of the risk or that the employer concealed or misrepresented the danger of the Press Brake, as required by section 440.11(l)(b)(2)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 603, 2014 WL 228681
...ectively, the “Royal Plumbing Defendants”). The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of these Defendants, finding there were no genuine issues of material fact, and that Defendants were entitled to worker’s compensation immunity under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2008)....
...cause Royal Plumbing was DBI’s subcontractor, if Zambrana was employed by Royal Plumbing (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....
...Joel Gonzalez As discussed above, because Joel Gonzalez is the president of both Royal Plumbing and One Stop Plumbing, and it is undisputed that Zambrana was employed by at least one of these entities, Joel Gonzalez would be entitled to immunity under either scenario unless one of the few exceptions, provided in section 440.11, applies....
...ional act designed to *1186 cause, or substantially certain to cause, injury or death to an employee;” or where the employer/supervisor/manager is culpably or criminally negligent. Byers v. Ritz,
890 So.2d 343, 346-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). See also, §
440.11(1), Fla....
...Rather, we hold that the owner’s decision to leave other managerial staff in charge while he is himself unavailable serves a “business purpose,” and therefore, Joel Gonzalez’s actions in doing so do not exempt him from the immunity he was otherwise entitled to under section 440.11(1)....
...The Architects Group, Inc., which was also named as (and remains) a defendant below, is not involved in this appeal. . The exception to this would be Joel Gonzalez, President of both One Stop Plumbing and Royal Plumbing. As an officer of both companies, he would be entitled to immunity under section 440.11(1) (absent any statutory exception to immunity), regardless of whether Zambrana was employed by One Stop Plumbing or Royal Plumbing....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 488, 1992 WL 10897
...ent, appeal from two summary judgments in that suit. We affirm the summary judgment on the issue of whether a jury could have found that appellee Kent acted with *766 gross negligence, thereby precluding immunity from suit as a fellow employee under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 282, 2004 WL 66749
...Cook also asserted a claim and received injury benefits under his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance. As an affirmative defense to the civil action brought by the Cooks, Van Bebber asserted that the Cooks’ claims were barred by the exclusivity provisions of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1999), and sought summary judgment on this ground....
...bber negligently designed the project plans. We conclude that the court erred by denying summary judgment on the latter claim. It is undisputed that Van Bebber was Mr. Cook’s statutory employer. Therefore, the exclusivity of liability provision of section 440.11 bars any recovery for his injuries from Van Bebber, unless the *152 circumstances fall under a recognized exception....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...s
developed to cover employers that utilize other companies’ employees to
complete their work under circumstances indicating that the borrowing
employer is the de facto employer of the borrowed employee at the time of
the injury.”); see also § 440.11(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 200, 2009 WL 77979
...oyee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work.'" Id. (quoting § 440.11(1)(b)(2), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 907, 1996 WL 50081
...nsation immunity. After a hearing, the trial court found that pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Law definition of employee, Hog Valley volunteer firefighters were Marion County employees and thus, Hog Valley was immune from suit pursuant to subsection 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989). THE LAW Section 440.11(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Law provides that “[t]he same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s bu...
...Persons who serve in private nonprofit agencies and who receive no compensation other than expenses.... THE ISSUE WHETHER HOG VALLEY IS A MARION COUNTY EMPLOYEE Hog Valley is entitled to claim immunity from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Law, section 440.11(1), if, like Baxter, Hog Valley is an employee of Marion County....
...were not volunteers to Marion County. Under the statutory definitions found in the Workers’ Compensation Law, Hog Valley’s volunteers are not Marion *288 County employees. Accordingly, we hold that Hog Valley is not immune from liability under section 440.11....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6319
...s that a consignee shall perform the unloading of heavy or bulky articles, except that, at the request of the consignor or consignee, “the truck driver will assist the consignor or consignee in loading or unloading.” This contention also invokes Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., providing that the employer’s liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of the employer to the employee....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18588
granted summary judgment for defendants based on Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1981). We affirm. *71As
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5896
...Plaintiff now seeks appellate review of the order granting summary judgment. 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....
...Having found from the facts presented that Stevens can not occupy the position of an employee, we further conclude that the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act Ch. 440, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., supra, can not apply and that Stevens could have no remedy thereunder. This being so, the provisions of § 440.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., supra, do not operate to deprive him of a right of action at common law....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19184
...1 The employees had duly received worker’s compensation benefits from the City of Miami on said accident. Neither employee sued, and admittedly could not have sued, the City of Miami in this negligence action as same was barred by the City’s worker’s compensation immunity. § 440.11(1), Fla.Stat....
...We, also, dismiss the appeal by the City of Miami as to the tort judgment entered in this cause as the City had no standing to appeal said judgment. Reversed and remanded. . Parenthetically, it should be noted that this suit could not be brought in the future as Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1977) — the statute applicable to the accident in this cause — was amended effective July 1, 1979, to give worker’s compensation immunity “to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in f...
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3030
...ct of Laws § 145 (1971), contemplate that the significant relationship between the parties and the occurrence was centered in Florida, and therefore the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act is the controlling law governing this matter. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.11 (West 1981)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 499, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 765, 1989 WL 11952
...In the appellant’s wrongful death action against the appellee for the death of her decedent while working on the construction of an apartment complex, the trial judge ruled that the appellee was immune from liability under the provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act, specifically section *532 440.11, Florida Statutes (1985)....
...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 the general contractor is immune from liability to the subcontractor’s employees....
...ation because it does not have the status of a general contractor who sublets a part of his contract work to a subcontractor. Therefore, such an owner is not required to secure worker’s compensation and does not enjoy immunity from liability under section 440.11....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15359
...This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Rose Ann Schmidt, as personal representative of the estate of Donald E. Schmidt, deceased, from a final order of dismissal in a wrongful death action wherein the appellees, Howard Johnson Company and Insurance Company of North America, were the defendants. We affirm on the authority of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16562, 1999 WL 1111770
...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)....
...ering 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 ....
...e 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. § 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....
...ortfeasor 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 or in admiralty on account of such injury or death ... [.] § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 9181, 1990 WL 195824
...ial, the trial court concluded it was without subject matter jurisdiction. The focus of Adjustco’s contentions on that occasion was the effect of section 440.37 and its subparts upon Sibley’s claims. The final judgment, however, is predicated on section 440.11, the portion of chapter 440 announcing the statute’s exclusive means enabling an injured worker to seek monetary and other relief for a job-related injury but permitting actions against third party tort-feasors. We do not rest our affirmance upon section 440.11....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4652
...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....
...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. Stats., F.S.A., which provides that every employee of a contractor or sub-contractor shall be covered by workmen’s compensation insurance. Section
440.11, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., provides in effect that remedies under the workmen’s compensation law shall be the exclusive remedy for employees injured on the job as the result of the actions of other employees of either the contractor or sub-contractor....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 6244198, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19195
...Where an employee covered by the worker’s compensation act is injured on the job, the employee’s sole remedy against his employer is through the provisions of the act. His employer is immune from negligence claims arising out of the same injury. § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12907, 1991 WL 280139
...anaging officers of the decedent’s corporate employer, were guilty of “gross negligence” which was a cause of the death in question so as to render them liable, notwithstanding the workers’ compensation immunity defense, under the version of section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1989) in effect at the time of the accident....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20851, 2011 WL 6851186
...ation immunity. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v); Ramos v. Univision Holdings, Inc.,
655 So.2d 89 (Fla.1995). The Florida workers’ compensation system provides the exclusive remedy for an employee injured in the course and scope of employment. See §
440.11, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13397, 1996 WL 734780
...Appellee did not present the trial court with any counter-sworn testimony. Effective January 1, 1994, the workers’ compensations laws were significantly revised. The amended statutes apply as this accident occurred in September 1994. Bechtel’s “immunity” is derived from section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1998), which provides that “[t]he liability of an employer prescribed in s....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1970 Fla. LEXIS 2238
CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur. . F.S. §
440.11 F.S.A. Exclusiveness of liability — The liability
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6966, 1989 WL 149584
...subcontractors to whom it has sublet part of its contract work. Abernathy,
428 So.2d 272 ; Jones v. Florida Power Corp.,
72 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954); Fidelity Construction Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Sons, Inc.,
130 So.2d 612 . 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 unde...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...inst the
plaintiff’s employer, despite the plaintiff having already received
worker’s compensation benefits under an insurance policy secured
by that employer, after the circuit court has denied a summary
judgment motion asserting immunity under section 440.11,
Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
summary judgment motion asserting immunity under section
440.11, Florida Statutes. The supreme court responded
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18857, 2004 WL 2884616
...Appellants appeal an order granting partial summary judgment and ruling that appellants were not entitled to assert workers’ compensation immunity in defense of the appellee’s claims on the dual grounds that Holt and the driver of the dump truck were assigned primarily to unrelated works under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2000), and that, at the time of the accident, Holt was engaged in a purely private mission and was not within the scope of his employment....
...s claim. 3. Even had Claude Earl Holt been involved in activity in the furtherance of his employer’s business, which he was not, he and the tort-feasor were involved in unrelated works and the exception to workers’ compensation immunity found in Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, would apply....
...Duffell,
651 So.2d 1176, 1177 (Fla.1995). However, this immunity is not applicable when the employee’s injuries result from the conduct of co-employees assigned primarily to unrelated works. Holmes County,
651 So.2d at 1178 . This exception, which is set forth in section
440.11(1) and is known as the unrelated works exception, provides in pertinent part: The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in further- *321 anee of the employer’s business ......
...rtment. They reported to work .at the same job location and held jobs- related to the upkeep of the streets and highways of Columbia County. They had in common the repair and maintenance of these streets and highways. Following the interpretation of section 440.11(1) adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Taylor , we conclude that it has not been clearly demonstrated that Holt and Reed were engaged in unrelated works, and thus, the exception does not apply....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21818
employer. This argument is likewise without merit. Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1979). AFFIRMED. ROBERT
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...suit against the plaintiff’s employer (despite the plaintiff’s having
already received worker’s compensation benefits under an
insurance policy secured by that employer) after the circuit court
has denied a summary judgment motion asserting immunity
under section 440.11, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1456, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8614
PER CURIAM. Upon a determination that Acme Fire Equipment Company, the defendant below, did not conclusively show, as it was required to do, that under Section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1979), it was a “safety consultant ......
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24292
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)....
...Both corporations are subsidiaries of General Builders Corporation. Sisk’s personal representative filed suit against the two sister corporations, General Builders and Cedar Lane. General Builders obtained a summary judgment by arguing that it was a contractor and, therefore, entitled to tort immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981)....
...s 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)....
...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)....
...GLICKSTEIN, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . 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....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2055
...ment against Florida Rock and Johnston as to Count I of their third-party complaint, holding, in pertinent part, as follows: Craggs and Alford contend that because they were Simpler’s employer (and fellow employee) they are entitled to benefits of Section 440.11, F.S....
...The facts clearly support the findings, now announced by the Court, that Simpler’s transportation to and from his place of employment was an incident to his employment: the “going and coming” rule does not apply: and the exclusivity rule embodied in Section 440.11, F.S....
...y provided transportation was solely for the convenience of the employee, Florida Rock and Johnston argue that the material facts in this case are indistinguishable from those in Allen v. Carman,
281 So.2d 317 (Fla.1973) and that Allen suggests that Section
440.11 should be applied in one fashion when an award of compensation benefits is being considered but in another fashion when the claims of possible joint tort feasors are at issue....
...benefit of the employer. The affidavits and depositions of Woolley and Alford are consistent in this regard and support the trial court’s determination. We find no basis, and no authority is cited, which would support a different interpretation of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, or of the “scope of employment” test, depending on whether the issue is one of claimant’s compensation or of tort-feasor/employer contribution....
...We recognize public policy considerations distinct in the application of Chapter 440 and the apparent injustice which may arise by precluding third-party tortfeasors who, though not party to the employment relationship and the benefits/duties of the Workers’ Compensation Act, are, by virtue of Section 440.11, rendered powerless to sue the employer whose negligence may be substantially responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries and the third party’s damages....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5230
...ions of the employer. By its answer, the appellee interposed its defenses among which was the contention that appellant’s third party 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....
...ute and entered its final summary judgment in favor of the employer. In our view, the trial court was correct and we affirm. There is no question but that the fatal injuries sustained by the decedent were covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Section 440.11 is quite explicit in relieving an employer electing to operate under the act from all liability to the employee “ * * * and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer * * * on account of such injury or death.”...
...t below that the majority view prohibiting such actions as expressed by the cases in the cited annotation reflects the better reasoned view. It seems to us that the majority view is in keeping with the legislative intent manifested by the wording of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13419, 2011 WL 3754660
...)(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. Stat. (2007). Section
440.11 of the Florida Statutes meanwhile provides that, in exchange for the contractor’s statutory obligation to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for the employees on the construction site, the contractor receives immunity from negligence liability for injuries suffered by any employee:
440.11....
...ty 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 or in admiralty on account of such injury or death ... § 440.11(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9447, 1997 WL 473831
...he swamp buggy, and that Williams’ exclusive remedy was under workers’ compensa *358 tion (i.e., to the extent Reed was being sued as Williams’ employer or co-worker, he was immune from tort liability under the provision of sections
440.09 and
440.11, Florida Statutes (1993))....
...Scott was president. Mr. Perkins had claimed and received workers’ compensation benefits from the corporation as the statutory employer. The Scotts were the owners of the property, which they leased to the corporation. The second district determined that although section 440.11 barred Mr....
...Perkins, as a fellow employee, extends only to their relationship as fellow employees in the course and scope of their mutual employment with S & S Pro Color. His statutory immunity protects him only when he is “acting in furtherance of the employer’s business.” Sec. 440.11, Fla....
...limited by the workers’ compensation immunity afforded him as a co-employee. Furthermore, a co-employee is protected by workers’ compensation exclusivity only when the co-employee is acting “in furtherance of the employer’s business.” See § 440.11, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5162
Compensation and that therefore the action was barred by §
440.11, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1 The appellee was injured when
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20872
...titution. *490 Generally, the law as found by the trial judge and espoused by the comptroller is correct. An injured worker’s exclusive remedy is Chapter 440. See Crosby v. Regional Utility Board of Gainesville,
400 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Section
440.11 Fla.Stat....
...See Quality Shell Homes and Supply v. Roley,
186 So.2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). We further hold that Escambia County, by its actions in inducing Destín to compromising his worker’s compensation claim and take an early medical retirement, is estopped from claiming Section
440.11, Florida Statutes (1979) as a defense to the action below....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15584
Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, specifically Section
440.11. The parties agree that unless the record establishes
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...The Grand Bargain of workers’ compensation provides a
great benefit to employers and co-employees in mandating the
statutory benefits provided by workers’ compensation as the
exclusive benefits an employee can receive for accidental injury
from a covered employer. See § 440.11, Fla....
...Citrus Publishing,
Inc.,
725 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the court concluded:
Thus, to permit an employer to deny benefits then
later assert immunity because the employee is entitled
to benefits would be to render this statutory provision [§
440.11, Fla....
...other grounds asserted for premises liability.
Additionally, eliminating compensability for workplace slip
and falls opens the possibility of an injured worker suing fellow
employees. Those fellow employees are currently immune from
suit for negligence under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Smith,
359 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla.1978). Although Spanish law allows recovery in tort actions, Florida law does not permit an employee receiving worker’s compensation benefits to institute an action in tort against his employer or his co-employee. *1066 Fla.Stat.Ann. §
440.11 (West 1981)....
...As the district court noted, “[Garcia] is barred from seeking a tort recovery when he has already availed himself of the benefits obtainable under Spanish worker’s compensation law. The fact that Spanish law would permit such a double recovery is of no significance_” See Fla.Stat.Ann. §§
440.09 and
440.11 (West 1981); Urda,
211 F.2d at 715 ....
...4 Given the facts and policy reasons presented in this case, the district court was correct in its application of Florida’s choice of law rules. II. Garcia also argues for the first time on appeal that Iberia and Penalver are not entitled to immunity under Florida Statute § 440.11. Essentially, Garcia contends that an employer is immune from suit under Florida’s worker’s compensation law only if the employer secures payment of compensation as required by the statute. See Fla.Stat.Ann. § 440.11 (West 1981)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19052
...ustained in an automobile accident in which she was a passenger in an automobile driven by defendant/appellee Mary Reagan, one of appellant’s fellow employees. We affirm. The issues on this appeal concern the constitutionality and applicability of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....
...ng in furtherance of the employer’s business except when the employee was acting with gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard of the interests of the victim or when the victim and fellow employee were assigned primarily to unrelated work. Section
440.11(1) has recently been held constitutional by our supreme court. Iglesia v. Floran,
394 So.2d 994 (Fla.1981). Furthermore, the trial court correctly found, after considering the facts in the light most favorable to appellant, that section
440.11(1) was applicable to this case and that there was no genuine issue of material fact that would bring this case within any of the exceptions set forth in the statute....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1109, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7915
(GS & A), the injured plaintiff’s employer. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1985) is unconstitutional
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 4408, 1995 WL 238768
...1st DCA 1994). We also affirm the trial court’s order granting attorney fees and costs based on section
768.79, Florida Statutes, as to these defendants. We reverse, however, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment as to appel-lee Davis. Section
440.11(1), Florida Statutes, only allows an employee to benefit from his employer’s immunity when the employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business....
...Further, under this section, fellow-employee immunity shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard, unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death. § 440.11(1), Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...the course and scope of employment. Bastien accepted and relied upon the
denial, bore his medical expenses, and then sued Bottling Group in tort, as
permitted by the workers’ compensation statute. See Byerley,
725 So. 2d at
1232–33; see also §
440.11(1)(a), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1749033, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6573
...him, causing his death. The Estate filed a wrongful death suit against the owners of the Gan-sevoort, Sandy Lane Residential and Sandy Lane Master Association, Inc. (“SLMA”), 1 and both asserted they were *611 entitled to employer immunity under section 440.11,- Florida Statutes (2011)....
...employer” at the time of his death, and had “secured” worker’s compensation benefits on his behalf. After a hearing, the trial court determined that both SLMA and Sandy Lane Residential were entitled to worker’s compensation immunity under section 440.11, and granted summary judgment in favor of both entities....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1077, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13675
...not acting in furtherance of his employer’s business. The court denied the defendant’s motion for new trial and entered a judgment against the defendant for $112,500. The only serious issue pertains to the defendant’s claim for immunity under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981), which reads in part: *811 (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s....
...eory under which he would not be entitled to workers’ compensation. While each of the cases cited above involved the exclusive remedy of an employee against his employer, we believe this principle also applies to suits against a coemployee because section 440.11(1) extends the same immunity from liability enjoyed by an employer to each qualifying employee....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6616, 2009 WL 1035087
...ble for payment of workers' compensation benefits if the subcontractor fails to secure and maintain workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and is therefore immune from all other liability on account of the employee's injury or death under section
440.11(1), unless the employer has committed an intentional tort which caused the injury or death. See Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts,
550 So.2d 1117 (Fla.1989); Carnegie Gardens Nursing Ctr. v. Banyai,
852 So.2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Yero v. Miami-Dade County,
838 So.2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Under section
440.11(1)(b), the employer's actions "shall be deemed to constitute an intentional tort and not an accident only when the employee proves, by clear and convincing evidence," either that the employer "deliberately intended to injure the employ...
...form the work." An injured worker who receives workers' compensation benefits but does not pursue a compensation claim to a conclusion on the merits may file an action against the employer for conduct rising to the level of an intentional tort under section 440.11(1)(b), Jones v....
...While there was some dispute in the evidence regarding whether the mill pile was negligently maintained, no expert witness opinion was presented that the condition of the mill pile where the accident occurred was "virtually certain to cause injury or death" as required by section 440.11(1)(b), nor was evidence presented that appellant was aware of such a "virtual certainty of injury or death" based on prior accidents or explicit warnings, nor that the plaintiff's decedent was unaware of the risk, nor that appellant had concealed or misrepresented the risk....
...y the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had elected her remedy in the workers' compensation forum and was therefore precluded from filing suit against appellant, and that the complaint did not sufficiently allege an "intentional tort" as contemplated by section 440.11(1)(b), nor did the plaintiff present evidence sufficient to establish such an intentional tort....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1955 Fla. LEXIS 3457
...The trial court apparently took the view that the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk were available to defendant to bar recovery. These defenses, along with the fellow servant doctrine, are specifically rendered unavailable by F.S.A. § 440.11, which provides in part that “if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter an injured employee * * * may elect * * * to maintain an action at law * * * for damages on account of such injury * * *....
...loyee.” Kemp admitted that he had failed to secure payment of compensation. The primary question then arising was whether he was “required” to do so by the provisions of Chapter 440. If he was, he lost three possible defenses under F.S.A. Sec. 440.11, above, while if he was not, the defenses might have been available to him....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 1972 Fla. LEXIS 3823
...The complaint below stated that the respondent insurance carrier was negligent in the performance of its inspection duties. No intermediate servicing corporation was involved in the complaint. A motion to dismiss was granted on the basis of the car *822 rier’s assumed immunity to tort suit under Fla.Stat. § 440.11 (1969), F.S.A....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...to bring forth facts from outside the four corners of the complaint, which
necessarily requires a motion for summary judgment.”); Eiler v. Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc.,
542 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (stating that “the
exclusivity provision set forth in section
440.11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act
is an affirmative defense which cannot be raised by a motion to dismiss unless the
allegations of a prior pleading in the case demonstrate the existence of such a
defense”); see also Ruiz v....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...ts
from outside the four corners of the complaint, which necessarily requires a motion
for summary judgment.”); Eiler v. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.,
542 So. 2d 441,
442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (stating that “the exclusivity provision set forth in section
440.11 of the Workers’ Compensation Act is an affirmative defense which cannot
be raised by a motion to dismiss unless the allegations of a prior pleading in the case
demonstrate the existence of such a defense”); see also Ruiz v....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...2d 683, 686 (Fla. 2000). As such, “workers’ compensation is the
exclusive remedy available to an injured employee as to any negligence on the part
of that employee’s employer.” Eller v. Shova,
630 So. 2d 537, 539 (Fla. 1993)
(citing Fla. Stat. §
440.11(1)); see also Ruiz v....
...2d at 686.
There are two exceptions to this rule. Workers’ compensation law does not
immunize an employer from suit when: (1) the employer’s intentional tort causes
the employee’s injury, see Jones v. Martin Elecs., Inc.,
932 So. 2d 1100, 1104–05
(Fla. 2006); Fla. Stat. §
440.11(1)(b)(1); or (2) the employer’s conduct is
“substantially certain” to injure the employee, Eller,
630 So. 2d at 539; see also
Fla. Stat. §
440.11(1)(b)(2).
Moreover, even when the injured employee’s tort action is not subject to
workers’ compensation immunity, an injured employee may be precluded from
bringing a tort suit against his employer when the employee has elected workers’
compensation benefits as his exclusive remedy....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...In that case Walsh, while an employee of Central Air Conditioning Company, was killed in July 1969, while working at the Fullerton Metals plant. Fullerton Metals settled the claim against it and then sued Central for indemnity. While that suit was pending the legislature amended § 440.11, F.S., effective June 18, 1971, so as to eliminate the *495 cause of action for indemnity such as Fullerton sought to maintain....
