WILLIAM E. BLOCKER, ROBERT A. BLOCKER, J. FRANK BLOCKER, D/B/A BLOCKERS HOUSE MOVERS AND LEADER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHANCE HAULING AND PAVING COMPANY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed summary judgment dismissing a contribution action under Section 440.11, which bars contribution claims between joint tortfeasors when workers' compensation is available.
Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, bars contribution actions between joint tortfeasors when workers' compensation coverage applies, and this statutory bar is constitutional.
[1] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, bars contribution actions between joint tortfeasors and is constitutional; the distinction between indemnity and contribution actions de…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlocker was injured in an accident involving Chance Hauling and Paving Company. After an unsuccessful jury trial on relative fault, Blocker filed a co…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contribution Action cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
This case arises from the same tragic accident described in Blocker v. Wynn, 425 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1983). Following his unsuccessful attempt to have the jury assess relative fault between Blocker and Chance Hauling and Paving Company, Wynn’s employer, Blocker filed a contribution action. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants based on Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1981). We affirm. As recognized by the trial court and all the parties, Section 440.11 applies and its constitutionality was upheld in Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1978).
Blocker argues, based on Sunspan Engineering and Construction Company v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Company, 310 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1975), that the statute is unconstitutional as applied. Smith, however, creates a distinction between indemnity and contribution actions. Sunspan has been described as an indemnity case, Houdaille Ind. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1979); Walker & LaBerge v. Halligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1977). The case before us is one for contribution, not indemnity. We, therefore, agree with the trial court that Smith and not Sunspan is the controlling decision.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Houdaille Indus., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979)
- Walker & LaBERGE, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1977)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1978)
- Sunspan Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co. & Spring-Lock Scaffolding of Fla., Inc., 310 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1975)
- Blocker v. Wynn, 425 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)