MARSHA ANN YUKON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RANDY L. YUKON, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
GRANADA CONSTRUCTION OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
A widow brought a wrongful death action against Granada Construction for her husband's death while working on an apartment complex. The trial court granted summary judgment to Granada based on Worker's Compensation immunity as a general contractor, but the appellate court reversed, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Granada was truly a general contractor or merely an owner contracting for construction work.
The court held that summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Granada's status on the date of the accident. The court distinguished between a general contractor (who sublets work and is entitled to immunity) and an owner who enters into construction contracts (who is not entitled to immunity), and found that fact question precluded summary judgment.
[1] A general contractor who sublets part of its contract work is required to secure worker's compensation for the subcontractor's employees, and is therefore immune from lia…
[2] An owner who contracts for construction work on its property, but does not act as a general contractor subletting work, is not required to secure worker's compensation an…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An owner who enters into contracts with companies for construction work on the owner's property is not required to secure worker's compensation because it does not have the status of a general contractor who sublets a part of his contract work to a subcontractor.”
Establishes the legal distinction between owners and general contractors for purposes of Worker's Compensation immunity
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandy L. Yukon died while working on the construction of an apartment complex. The decedent was employed by a plumbing subcontractor. Granada Construc…
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 Subcontractor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
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 440.11, Florida Statutes (1985). That ruling was based on the trial judge’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue regarding the appellee’s status as general contractor for the construction project and that the appellee had subcontracted plumbing work at the site to the decedent’s employer. Since, under section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1985), a general contractor in that posture is required to secure the payment of compensation to all employees of the subcontractor, the liability to secure compensation is exclusive under section 440.11(1) and the general contractor is immune from liability to the subcontractor’s employees.
We disagree with the trial judge’s conclusion. After a review of the record in this cause, we are persuaded that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the status of the appellee on the date of the accident; that is, we believe there is a question concerning the relationship of the appellee on that date to the developer and owner of the apartment complex. An owner who enters into contracts with companies for construction work on the owner’s property is not required to secure worker’s compensation 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. Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1954); McCormick v. Premiere Group, Inc., 523 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
The appellee’s status on the date of the accident is, of course, a material fact. Since we believe that there is a genuine issue as to that fact, summary judgment is precluded. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lively v. CSX Transp., Inc., 557 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…d in the trucks of the car. The appeal herein is from a summary judgment. The test for summary judgment is whether there exists any genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Yukon v. Granada Construction of Florida, 538 So. 2d 531 (Fla.2d DCA 1989). From the record before us, we find there is a genuine issue of material fact. This case was filed under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 (1939). Under the facts of this case, the test of whether there is a…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1954)
- McCORMICK v. Premiere Grp., Inc., 523 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)