JOYCE A. DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
IRWIN APPRAISAL & CONSULTING SERVICES, ET AL., 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.
Joyce Davis, as personal representative of her husband's estate, appeals a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful death claim against Irwin Appraisal & Consulting Services, which owned a crane that fell and killed her husband at a construction site. The court reversed the summary judgment because disputed facts existed regarding whether the ultimate lessee was immune under workers' compensation law.
The court held that summary judgment was improvidently entered because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether A-1's relationship with Cedarwood was a lease (which would extend immunity to Irwin) or a subcontract (which would not extend immunity to Irwin). Irwin's liability depends on resolving this factual dispute.
[1] A crane owner may be immune from liability under workers' compensation statutes if the ultimate lessee of the crane is also immune from suit.
[2] A general contractor's workers' compensation immunity can extend to a crane owner if the crane was leased to the general contractor.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Irwin 'is immune from liability under the workers compensation statute where the ultimate lessee of the crane is immune from suit under the workers compensation statute.'”
The trial court's basis for granting summary judgment, establishing the legal theory that immunity could extend from the ultimate lessee to the equipment owner.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 19, 1986, Maurice Davis, an employee of Ram Construction Company, was killed when a crane jib snapped and fell on him at a job site. Irwin ow…
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 Lessor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
Joyce Davis, as the personal representative of the estate of her husband Maurice Davis, appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Irwin Appraisal & Consulting Services, Inc. (Irwin).
On April 19, 1986, Davis, an employee of Ram Construction Company, was killed at the job site when the jib of a crane snapped and fell on him. The crane was owned by Irwin and through various leases, leased to A-l Trucking & Rigging, Inc. (A-l). The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Irwin upon a holding that Irwin “is immune from liability under the workers compensation statute where the ultimate lessee of the crane is immune from suit under the workers compensation statute.”
Cedarwood Construction, Inc. (Cedarwood), the general contractor, had workers compensation coverage. There is evidence in the record that A-l leased the crane in question to Cedarwood and appel-lee argues that Cedarwood’s workers compensation immunity extends to Irwin, the owner of the crane. If, in fact, the crane was so leased, Cedarwood’s immunity would extend to Irwin, and the trial court’s ruling would be correct. Scott & Jobalia Construction Company, Inc. v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 538 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), affirmed, 565 So. 2d 1346 (Fla.1990).
However, there is also evidence in the record to indicate that Cedarwood entered into a later subcontract agreement with A-1 by which A-l agreed to furnish “all supervision, labor, materials, tools, equipment, miscellaneous job supplies and permits necessary for the performance and completion of the work ...” and if A-l was a subcontractor and not a lessor, then A-l would not be immune from liability for injuries to Davis, an employee of subcontractor Ram,1 and thus neither would Irwin.
Because there is an issue of fact as to the relationship between A-l and Cedarwood, the summary judgment was improvidently entered. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . Section 440.10, Fla.Stat. (1985); Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1983). Cf. Theisen v. Simmons, 419 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.E. Lassiter and Donna Marie Lassiter v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 610 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…other requirements, the record is insufficient to determine whether the Lassiters’ affirmative defenses would be barred by § 1823(e). Based on this record, RTC is not entitled to summary judgment. See Davis v. Irwin Appraisal & Consulting Services, 585 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (genuine issue of material fact existed where status of company, which would determine its liability, was unclear from the evidence). Finally, the RTC argues that the Lassiters are barred from asserting their affirmative defense…
-
Lund v. Gen. Crane, Inc., 638 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
Authorities Cited
- Halifax Paving, Inc. v. Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., Inc., 565 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1990)
- Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1983)
- Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 538 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Theisen v. Simmons, 419 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)