CANTEL HOMES, INC. AND FLORIDA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, SERVICED BY TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, APPELLANTS,
v.
NGRJ, INC. D/B/A LABOR FINDERS AND ACE/ESIS, AND SECURITY DRYWALL, SECURITY DRYWALL II, R.L. EXPERTS DRYWALL, INC., RAUL GONZALEZ AND GARY MCQUISTON, 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.
In a workers' compensation case, Cantel Homes and its insurer appealed a judge's determination that Labor Finders and its insurers were not liable for reimbursement of benefits paid to an injured worker, and that the worker was employed by Lydia Crespo. The appellate court affirmed the reimbursement decision but reversed the employment determination, finding no competent evidence that Crespo was the employer.
The court affirmed that Labor Finders and its insurers were not responsible for reimbursement because the certificate of insurance did not identify Security Drywall as an additional insured and there was no promise that would reasonably induce Cantel to permit non-Labor Finders employees to work on the job. The court reversed the determination that the claimant was employed by Lydia Crespo, finding no competent evidence to support that conclusion.
[1] Promissory estoppel does not apply when there was no promise that Labor Finders or its insurers reasonably expected would induce a party to permit someone not employed by…
[2] A certificate of insurance that lists only the primary entity as insured, and states coverage exists for employees of that entity performing work for a third party, does…
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“the judge should have found NGRJ, doing business as Labor Finders, and its insurers liable for reimbursement of benefits paid to the claimant on a promissory estoppel theory”
States appellants' argument on the first issue regarding reimbursement liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCantel Homes paid workers' compensation benefits to a claimant. The claimant was performing work on a job for Security Drywall. Labor Finders, a temp …
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 Certificate Of Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this workers’ compensation case, appellants argue that the judge of compensation claims incorrectly determined that (1) appellees NGRJ, Inc., doing business as Labor Finders, and its insurers were not responsible to reimburse them for benefits paid to the claimant; and (2) the claimant was an employee of Lydia Crespo. As to the first issue, appellants contend that, based on our decision in Criterion Leasing Group v. Gulf Coast Plastering & Drywall, 582 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the judge should have found NGRJ, doing business as Labor Finders, and its insurers liable for reimbursement of benefits paid to the claimant on a promissory estoppel theory.
We conclude that the judge correctly determined that the Criterion decision is distinguishable because there the certificate of insurance had identified both Gulf Coast and its subcontractor, Evans Blount, as insureds; whereas, in this case, the certificate of insurance did not reflect that Security Drywall was an additional insured with Labor Finders but, rather, clearly stated only that coverage existed for Labor Finders employees who were performing work for Security at the time of their injury. It is undisputed that the claimant was not an employee of Labor Finders at the time of his injury. Because there was no promise which either Labor Finders or its insurers might reasonably have expected would induce Cantel to permit somebody who was not employed by Labor Finders to perform work on the job for Security, the concept of promissory estoppel discussed in Criterion does not come into play.
Accordingly, we affirm the judge’s determination that appellees NGRJ, Inc., doing business as Labor Finders, and its insurers were not responsible to reimburse appellants for benefits paid to the claimant.
As to the second issue, we agree with appellants that there is no competent evidence in the record from which one might reasonably conclude that the claimant was employed by Lydia Crespo at the time of his injury. Accordingly, we reverse the judge’s contrary determination, and remand for the judge to determine which individual or entity was the claimant’s employer. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Criterion Leasing Grp. & Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Gulf Coast Plastering & Drywall, 582 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)