KENT INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
RAY HOBBS, D/B/A HILLSBOROUGH SECURITY PATROL, RESPONDENT
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.
Kent Insurance Company sought a writ of certiorari to review a deputy commissioner's non-final order determining he had jurisdiction to decide an insurance coverage dispute and that coverage existed under a workers' compensation policy despite alleged breach of a cooperation clause. The court denied the petition, holding that the deputy commissioner has statutory authority to interpret insurance contracts in workers' compensation cases and that Kent failed to demonstrate an inadequate remedy by appeal.
The deputy commissioner has statutory authority under Florida Statute § 440.25(1) to hear and determine all questions respecting workers' compensation claims, including construction of insurance contracts. The petition for certiorari was properly denied because the issue of breach of the cooperation clause relates directly to coverage of a Chapter 440 workers' compensation claim, falling within the deputy's jurisdiction, and because Kent failed to demonstrate an inadequate remedy by appeal.
[1] A deputy commissioner has the authority to determine all questions related to workers' compensation claims, including the construction of contracts.
[2] A deputy commissioner has jurisdiction to determine insurance coverage issues when they are relevant to a Chapter 440 workers' compensation claim.
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 deputy commissioner has the power and authority "to hear and determine all questions" in respect to workers' compensation claims.”
Establishes the statutory basis for the deputy commissioner's jurisdiction over insurance coverage disputes in workers' compensation matters.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKent Insurance Company issued a workers' compensation insurance policy to Ray Hobbs, d/b/a Hillsborough Security Patrol. A workers' compensation claim…
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 Breach Of Cooperation Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Kent Insurance Company has petitioned this Court for issuance of a writ of common law certiorari to review the non-final order of the deputy commissioner ruling: (1) that he had jurisdiction to determine an issue of insurance coverage; and (2) that there was coverage because no breach of the cooperation clause contained in the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance occurred on the part of the insured/employer. We have jurisdiction, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Sloan, 410 So. 2d 549, 550 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), but deny the petition.
The deputy commissioner has the power and authority “to hear and determine all questions” in respect to workers’ compensation claims. § 440.25(1), Fla.Stat.; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Rich, 220 So. 2d 369, 371 (Fla.1969); International Piling, Inc. v. American National Fire Insurance Company, 345 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York v. Scott, 390 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). That authority would include construction of contracts. Total Appliance Repairs v. Nelson, 382 So. 2d 1333, 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
This case is distinguishable from U.S. Home Corp. v. Parker, 404 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and TRW, Inc. v. Betts, 407 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), cited by Kent. In Parker, the deputy adjudicated an independent indemnification controversy between the carrier and the employer. In Betts, the deputy resolved an issue involving interpretation of an insurance clause regarding nonwork-related injuries. In each case this Court held that the deputy was without jurisdiction as neither issue related to a Chapter 440 claim. In the instant case, however, the issue, whether there was a breach of the cooperation clause by the insured/employer, is relevant to the issue whether the Chapter 440 claim was covered by workers’ compensation insurance. Thus, the deputy having jurisdiction, the petition is denied insofar as it challenges his authority.
The remainder of the petition should also be denied as failing to demonstrate that Kent would not have an adequate remedy by appeal. Gadsden County Times, Inc. v. Horne, 382 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), petition for review denied, 389 So. 2d 1109 (Fla.1980). Although Kent intimates that the deputy’s decision is not based on competent substantial evidence, it does not present any meaningful argument why it could not appeal the issue upon entry of a final order, other than the “irreparable harm” caused by Kent’s having to expend money and time to defend the insured. As a general rule, “the burden, vexation, or hazard of defending litigation does not furnish a basis for certiorari intervention.” Id.; see also Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Whether the deputy’s determination of coverage is based on competent substantial evidence is an issue to be properly raised on appeal.
Accordingly, the petition for common law certiorari is hereby DENIED.
MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hines Elec. & Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. McCLURE, 616 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…1987). Orders which determine compensability and coverage were not reviewable. ESI v. Taylor, supra; Ralston Purina v. Tancak, 508 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); J.L. Manta, Inc. v. Ramos, 526 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Kent Ins. Co. v. Hobbs, 421 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).7 Where certiorari was found to be inappropriate, many times the determination of jurisdiction was based upon a failure to demonstrate an injury which could not be remedied on appeal from the final order. See ESI v. Taylor, supra…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Edwards v. Lawyers Title Guar. Fund, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Wenk v. Tsiotis, 370 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Gadsden Cnty. Times Inc. v. Mallory E. Horne, 382 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Sloan, 410 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- The Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Rich, 220 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1969)
- U. S. Home Corp. & Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Parker, 404 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Total Appliance Repairs & Allstate Ins. Co. v. Elliott Nelson, 382 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- TRW, Inc. v. Betts, 407 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Int'l Piling, Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 345 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Jones v. State, 390 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)