PLACIDO MORENO, SECUNDINO RAMOS AND DOMINGO A. MENDEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNIVERSAL TRUSSES, INC., AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the employer must prove it was contractually obligated to perform work for another to qualify for the workers' compensation bar.
Appellants were injured in a forklift accident while working on property owned by Universal Trusses, their employer. They sued Universal for negligent…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
BASKIN, Judge.
Appellants were injured in a forklift accident which occurred while Universal Trusses was engaged in expanding its warehouse on property it owned. They sued to recover damages from Universal for the negligent operation of the forklift by a Universal employee. The trial court granted summary judgment for Universal, ruling that the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. We disagree and reverse.
To benefit from the workers’ compensation bar, Universal must establish that it was an employer and contractor obligated to secure compensation for its employees. Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1954). To qualify as a contractor, Universal would be required to prove that it was contractually obligated to perform work for another. Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Industries, Inc., 407 So. 2d 910 (Fla.1981); State ex rel. Auchter Co. v. Luckie, 145 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 148 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1962); Floyd v. Flash Welding Co., 127 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 133 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1961); §§ 440.10, 440.11, Fla.Stat. (1979).
Finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning Universal’s status and relationship to appellants and that Jones v. Florida Power Corp. is controlling, we reverse the summary judgments and remand for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…urt within 90 days of that court’s receipt of the mandate. Armbruster observed that during the pendency of the appeal, one of the parties had sought relinquishment of jurisdiction to file a 1.540 motion in the trial court, and the motion was denied. 416 So. 2d 1221 n. 2. The appellate court’s granting of an additional 90 days in which to file such motion suggests that the one-year period had fully expired and the court was attempting to provide an exception to the one-year rule for the parties involved.…
-
The Miami Herald Publ'g v. Hatch, 617 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…uction projects on which subcontractor’s carpenter was injured, and one construction site was on the home purchaser’s lot, and the other site was on the development company’s own lot with no prospective purchaser); Moreno v. Universal Trusses, Inc., 416 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In reviewing the deputy commissioner’s finding in Barrow of no statutory employment based in part on the unwritten nature of the arrangement, we noted that “absence of a written contract is immaterial because the statute does not…
-
Kanecke v. George's Crane Serv., Inc., 567 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1972); Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1954); Cadillac Fairview of Fla., Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 479 So. 2d 117 (Fla.1985); Moreno v. Universal Trusses, Inc., 416 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1954)
- Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Indus., Inc., 407 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Luckie, 145 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Air-Col Air Conditioning & Refrigeration v. Tyson, 148 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1962)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Rotolante, 148 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1962)
- Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. v. Novack, 127 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Rotolante v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 133 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1961)