ROBERT FAVRE, APPELLANT,
v.
CAPELETTI BROTHERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
An employee of a subcontractor who received workers' compensation benefits sought to sue the general contractor for negligence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a summary judgment holding that workers' compensation is the employee's exclusive remedy, upholding the constitutionality of the relevant statutory provisions.
An employee who has received workers' compensation benefits cannot separately sue the general contractor for negligence, and sections 440.10 and 440.11 of the Florida Statutes are constitutional as applied. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy available to the employee.
[1] An employee of a subcontractor who receives workers' compensation benefits for an injury cannot separately sue the general contractor.
[2] Workers' compensation statutes can be constitutional as applied to bar an employee of a subcontractor from suing the general contractor.
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 employee of a subcontractor who received workmen's compensation for an injury could not separately sue the general contractor”
States the core holding of the case regarding the exclusivity of the workers' compensation remedy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Favre was employed by Crow-Bagwell, Inc., a subcontractor working on a bridge project for general contractor Capeletti Brothers, Inc. Favre suf…
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 Constitutionality Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a direct appeal from a summary judgment entered by the trial court, holding that an employee of a subcontractor who received workmen’s compensation for an injury could not separately sue the general contractor. In doing so, the trial court expressly upheld the constitutionality of sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1977). We have jurisdiction.1
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Appellant Robert Favre filed a civil action against the appellee, Capeletti Brothers, Inc., the general contractor on a bridge. Appellant was working on the bridge as an employee of Crow-Bagwell, Inc., a subcontractor of Capeletti Brothers. The appellant-employee alleged the general contractor negligently caused his injury. The appellant-employee has obtained full workmen’s compensation benefits from the workmen’s compensation coverage provided by his employer, Crow-Bagwell, Inc. In response to the appellant’s complaint, Cape-letti Brothers filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that workmen’s compensation was the appellant’s exclusive remedy. The trial court agreed and granted the summary judgment, expressly holding sections 440.10 and 440.11, Florida Statutes (1977), constitutional. Appellant contends Sunspan Engineering and Construction Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co., 310 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1975), is applicable and requires this Court to hold sections 440.10 and 440.11 unconstitutional as applied to appellant. We reject this contention and find the factual circumstances totally dissimilar. Our decision in Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1954), governs this factual situation. See also Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1972). We affirm.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. . Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fred v. Sasso, 431 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ons of Chapter 440, most notably section 440.11, which provides for exclusivity of remedy, have also withstood access to court challenges. See Chittick v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 403 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Favre v. Capeletti Brothers, Inc., 381 So. 2d 1356 (Fla.1980); Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1978); Carroll v. Zurich Insurance Company, 286 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Carter v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., 198 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1967). In at least two cases, the except…
-
Chase v. Tenbroeck, 399 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…on to construct, and who sublets portions of the work, is a contractor within the meaning of section 440.10 and thus is the statutory employer of the employees of its subcontractors as well as of its own employees. Favre v. Capeletti Brothers, Inc., 381 So. 2d 1356 (Fla.1980); Hammel v. Pittman, 389 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Workmen’s compensation immunity derives from a vertical relationship between a contractor and his subs. See Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1972); C & S Crane Service, Inc. v.…
-
Chittick v. E. AIR Lines, Inc., 403 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…jured employee “shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability” to the employee, the immunity provision has been held to be constitutional. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1978); Favre v. Capeletti Brothers, 381 So. 2d 1356 (Fla.1980); Carroll v. Zurich, 286 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Gross v. Rudy’s Stone Company, 179 So. 2d 603 (Fla.App.1965). Accordingly, the appealed order is AFFIRMED. McCORD, J., and WOODIE A LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1954)
- Sunspan Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. Spring-Lock Scaffolding Co. & Spring-Lock Scaffolding of Fla., Inc., 310 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1975)
- Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1972)