WILLIAM E. LINGOLD AND PATRICIA E. LINGOLD, APPELLANTS,
v.
TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY AND ROBERT E. HOWARD, D/B/A BOB HOWARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 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.
A general contractor is immune from suit by an injured employee of a subcontractor under Florida's workers' compensation statute when the subcontractor is performing work that is part of the general contractor's primary contract obligation. The court held that the floor covering company was a statutory employer's subcontractor, making the injured employee's workers' compensation benefits the exclusive remedy.
The general contractor is immune from suit. The floor covering company was a subcontractor to the general contractor because it performed part of the general contractor's obligation under the main contract, making the injured employee a statutory employee of the general contractor. Therefore, workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy for the injured employee's injuries.
[1] A general contractor is immune from suit by an injured employee of a subcontractor if the general contractor was required to carry workers' compensation insurance on the…
[2] An entity is a statutory employer under workers' compensation law when it sublets part of a contract obligation to others, regardless of whether the subcontractor is an i…
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“If appellee was required to carry workers' compensation insurance on appellant, or see that it was carried, appellee is immune from suit by appellant; otherwise, appellee is not immune.”
Establishes the controlling legal test for workers' compensation immunity of a general contractor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe general contractor contracted to build a residence and was obligated to supply and install floor covering. Rather than directly employing workers,…
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 Statutory Employer cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This case involves the question of whether or not a general contractor is immune under the workers’ compensation statute from suit against it by an injured employee of a subcontractor. Appellee, as general contractor, contracted to build a residence for an owner and the contract included supplying and installing floor covering. The general contractor had a general agreement with a floor covering company to provide floor covering to fulfill the contract requirement. However, the contract provided a monetary allowance for the cost of the floor covering and the contractor permitted the owner and the floor covering company to deal directly so that the latter could provide floor covering to the owner’s satisfaction, with the owner paying the floor covering company all costs over the contract allowance paid by the general contractor. Appellant, an employee of the floor covering company, was injured on the job, collected workers’ compensation benefits from his employer then sued appel-lee, the general contractor, for negligently failing to provide a safe work place. The trial court entered summary judgment for the general contractor on the basis that it was an employer and immune under workers’ compensation from suit by appellant. This appeal results.
If appellee was required to carry workers’ compensation insurance on appellant, or see that it was carried, appellee is immune from suit by appellant; otherwise, appellee is not immune.1
Under Florida law applicable in this case,2 an entity is required to provide workers’ compensation when it is an “actual” employer3 because it employs laborers under direct supervision and control or when it, as a contractor,4 sublets 5 part of a contract obligation to others and thereby be comes a “statutory employer” of the subcontractor’s employees.6 In this latter instance, whether the subcontractor is an “independent contractor” or not is irrelevant.7
In this ease, the original contract required appellee, as general contractor, to supply and install floor covering. Without regard to the question of whether the subcontractor was an “independent contractor” or was subject to the general contractor’s direct supervision, and notwithstanding that the owner had some direct dealings with appellant’s employer, the floor covering company, that entity was performing part of appellee’s obligation under the main contract, therefore under section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes (1979), the floor covering company was a subcontractor to appellee and appellant was a statutory employee of appellee. Accordingly, workers’ compensation was appellant’s exclusive remedy. The summary judgment for appellee was proper and is hereby
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, J., concur. . § 440.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1981); Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla.1973); Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla.1972); Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So. 2d 285, 287 (Fla.1954).
. § 440.10, Fla.Stat. (1979). That section was amended by chapter 80-236, section 2, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1980, but such amendment is not applicable in this case.
. See § 440.02(4), Fla.Stat. (1979).
. “A contractor is one under a contractual obligation to perform some work for another.” Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Indus., Inc., 407 So. 2d 910 (Fla.1981); State ex rel. Auchter Co. v. Luckie, 145 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 148 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1962).
.“To ‘sublet’ means to ‘underlet’, Webster’s New International Dictionary; in the context in which it is here used, the effect of subletting is to pass on to another an obligation under a contract for which the person so ‘subletting’ is primarily obligated.” Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So. 2d at 289. This passage was quoted in Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d at 59 (citing Jones v. Florida Power Corp. and Smith v. Ussery) and Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d at 165 (citing Jones v. Florida Power Corp.).
. See § 440.10(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).
. See, e.g., Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Indus., Inc.; Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt, 48 So. 2d 840 (Fla.1950).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Avery W. Crawford and Lula Belle Crawford v. Fla. Steel Corp., 478 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…f workers under its direct supervision and control or when, as a contractor, it sublets part of the contract obligation to others and thereby becomes a “statutory employer” of the subcontractor’s employees. Lingold v. Transamerica Insurance Company, 416 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Florida Steel is clearly not a “statutory employer.” We are initially concerned, therefore, only with the question of whether Florida Steel is Crawford’s “actual” em [*859] ployer. Resolution of this issue requires us to look to…
-
Scott & Jobalia Constr. Co., Inc. v. Halifax Paving, Inc., 538 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…subcontractor, an owner who is only vicariously or derivatively liable, is not liable to an injured employee of either, unless he is actively negligent. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1964); Lingold v. Transmerica Ins. Co., 416 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Kolarik v. Rodgers Bros. Service, Inc., 268 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. den., 272 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1973); 2 Fla.Jur.2d, Agency & Employment § 116 (1977). However, he is liable to a third party (member of the public). See…
-
Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Zenobia Revoredo, 698 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…workers’ compensation for the employee. Rather, it is the creation of the statutory employer-employee relationship that establishes the employer’s duty to secure compensation. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, in Lingold v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 416 So. 2d 1271, 1272-73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)(footnotes omitted), noted that it is the act of subletting (subcontracting) that renders the contractor (here Perez) an employer of the subcontractor’s employees: “Under Florida law applicable in this case, an entity is…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1973)
- Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Kindt, 48 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1950)
- Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Indus., Inc., 407 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1981)
- Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Luckie, 145 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Air-Col Air Conditioning & Refrigeration v. Tyson, 148 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1962)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Rotolante, 148 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1962)