HERBERT HAYES YACHT AND SHIP SALES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOEL A. LOVELL AND STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Herbert Hayes Yacht and Ship Sales appealed an unemployment compensation decision finding that a yacht salesman was an employee rather than an independent contractor. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Commission failed to apply the proper legal test for employee status and lacked substantial evidence to support its finding.
The court reversed the Commission's determination that Lovell was an employee, concluding that the Commission erred by placing unwarranted importance on the single fact that Lovell could not sell for other companies and failed to apply the proper control test for determining employee status.
[1] The decisive factor in determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee is the right to control the mode of doing the work contracted for.
[2] An employer's right to direct what shall be done, and when and how it shall be done, is the principal consideration in distinguishing an independent contractor from an em…
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“Generally the test of what constitutes independent service lies in the control exercised, the decisive question being who has the right to direct what shall be done, and when and how it shall be done. The right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for is the principal consideration in determining whether one is employed as an independent contractor or as a servant.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for determining employee vs. independent contractor status, emphasizing the right of control as the principal consideration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoel A. Lovell worked as a yacht salesman for Herbert Hayes Yacht and Ship Sales, Inc. Lovell was an experienced salesman with his own customers, rece…
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 Right To Control Test cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Herbert Hayes Yacht and Ship Sales, Inc., appeals a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission of the Department of Labor and Employment Security which affirmed an appeals referee’s decision determining that Joel A. Lovell was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. Mr. Lovell worked as a yacht salesman for the Hayes Yacht and Ship Sales Company. The issue below was whether Mr. Lovell was in fact an employee or an independent contractor as asserted by appellant. We conclude that the Commission erred in its determination that Mr. Lovell was an employee and reverse.
The criteria for determining independent contractor vs. employee status has been often set out by the courts. See Justice v. Belford Trucking Co., 272 So.d 131 (Fla. 1972); Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1966); and Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors, 146 Fla. 773, 1 So. 2d 858 (1941). As this court stated in Collins v. Federated Mutual Implement and Hardware Insurance Co., 247 So. 2d 461, 463 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1971):
Generally the test of what constitutes independent service lies in the control exercised, the decisive question being who has the right to direct what shall be done, and when and how it shall be done. The right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for is the principal consideration in determining whether one is employed as an independent contractor or as a servant. The relationship of employer and employee requires control and direction by the employer over the actual conduct of the employee.
Instead of employing the criteria for employee status as stated in the aforementioned authorities, the commission made the following findings in this regard:
Employer [Herbert Hayes Yacht & Ship Sales, Inc.] contends that the claimant was an independent contractor and, therefore, not covered under unemployment compensation. The claimant disagrees with this and indicates that he was in fact an employee. There has been no evidence of probative value presented in this case to show that the claimant was in fact an independent contractor and the employer’s testimony clearly shows that he was expected to be under their direction for the purpose of sales, and he could not go out on his own and perform sales for other brokers. This alone would qualify the claimant as an employee and under the direction of the employer. (Emphasis supplied.)
Even if there were evidence that Mr. Lovell could not sell yachts for companies other than the Hayes Company, this would not mean he must be found to be an employee as a matter of law. Mr. Lovell was an experienced yacht salesman who testified that he had his own customers. His only compensation was commissions he was paid on the yachts he sold. He controlled his own manner of working and his hours were not determined by the Hayes Yacht Company. Mr. Lovell worked his own hours and conducted his own dealings both in and out of the office. The Hayes Yacht Company provided him with a desk and a telephone, but absent evidence of a right to control, the finding of an employee status was not warranted. See Jean M. Light Interviewing Services, Inc. v. State, 254 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), and Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Vocelle, 106 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958).
The commission placed unwarranted importance on the single fact that Mr. Lovell was not permitted to sell for other companies while engaged by appellant. This fact alone did not require a ruling of employee status.
We conclude that the record is lacking in competent and substantial evidence to support the decision of the commission and same is hereby reversed.
REVERSED.
MOORE, BERANEK, and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A NU Transfer, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec. Div. of Emp. Sec., 427 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…referred to in Justice v. Belford Trucking Co., 272 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1972); Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla.1966); Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors, 146 Fla. 773, 1 So. 2d 858 (1941); Herbert Hayes Yacht and Ship Sales, Inc., v. Lovell, 406 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Collins v. Federated Mutual Implement and Hardware Insurance Co., 247 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) which is necessary to support an employee-employer relationship as contrasted to an independent contractor, we find the owner-o…
-
VIP Tours OF Orlando, Inc. v. State, 449 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…t; and (j) whether the principal is or is not in business. It has been said repeatedly that of all the factors, the right of control as to the mode of doing the work is the principal consideration. Herbert Hayes Yacht & Ship Sales, Inc. v. Lovell, 406 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Collins v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Ins. Co., 247 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1971). See also A Nu Transfer, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Sec., 427 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d…
-
Hilldrup Transfer & Storage of New Smyrna Beach, Inc. v. State, 447 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…however, is Hilldrup’s interest in the end result as opposed to the details of the operator’s work. See Cosmo Personnel Agency of Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. State, 407 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Herbert Hayes Yacht and Ship Sales, Inc. v. Lovell, 406 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).5 By permitting the operators to set their own work hours and routes, hire and supervise their own helpers and accept or reject work assignments, Hilldrup has indicated a lack of interest in the details of their work. The facts…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Cantor v. Robert Cochran & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 184 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1966)
- K. M. Magarian (Claimant) v. S. Fruit Distribs. (Employer) & Nat'l Cas. Ins. Co. (Carrier), 146 Fla. 773 (Fla. 1941)
- Collins v. Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co. & Ervin E. Faircloth, 247 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Farmers & Merchs. Bank v. Vocelle, 106 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Jean M. Light Interviewing Servs., Inc. v. State, 254 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Bumgarner v. Communist Styled Type Officials, 249 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1971)
- Gasparro v. Horner, 249 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1971)