FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROLYN SUE HUWER, APPELLEE
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.
Florida Power & Light Company appealed a negligence judgment, claiming the trial court erred in denying its motion to amend its answer to include the workers' compensation exclusivity defense. The court affirmed, holding that FP&L was not entitled to the defense because the plaintiff was an employee of an independent contractor, not FP&L, and therefore was covered by workers' compensation as Wackenhut's employee.
FP&L was not entitled to the workers' compensation exclusivity defense as a matter of law because: (1) Huwer was never employed by FP&L; and (2) Huwer was not excluded or exempted from the Workers' Compensation Act protection. Although Huwer was an employee of an independent contractor, she herself was not an independent contractor and therefore was plainly covered by the Act as Wackenhut's employee.
[1] A party is not entitled to the workers' compensation exclusivity defense if the injured party was never employed by that party and was not otherwise excluded or exempted…
[2] Payment of workers' compensation benefits to an injured party does not, in itself, entitle the payer to the exclusivity defense against tort claims.
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“Huwer (a) was never employed by FP & L, and (b) was not otherwise excluded or exempted from the protection of the Workers' Compensation Act [hereinafter "the Act"]— both of which are circumstances required by the above statute in order for the employer to acquire the exclusivity defense as to tort claims of otherwise non-covered employees.”
Establishes the two statutory requirements for invoking the workers' compensation exclusivity defense, neither of which FP&L satisfied.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarolyn Sue Huwer, an employee of The Wackenhut Corporation, was injured while working as a security guard at FP&L's Turkey Point nuclear plant. Wacke…
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 Employee Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Florida Power and Light Company [hereinafter “FP & L”] from an adverse final judgment in a negligence action. The sole point raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying FP & L’s motion to amend its answer to include the affirmative defense of the workers’ compensation exclusivity bar to the instant suit. We disagree and affirm based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, it is undisputed that FP & L paid the plaintiff Carolyn Sue Huwer [hereinafter “Huwer”] workers’ compensation benefits in the amount of $35,392.40 for an injury which she incurred while working as a security guard for The Wackenhut Corporation [hereinafter “Wackenhut”] at FP & L’s Turkey Point nuclear plant. Huwer was an employee of Wackenhut; Wacken-hut was an independent contractor hired by FP & L to guard its facility at Turkey Point.
Second, FP & L is not entitled, as urged, to the workers' compensation exclusivity defense by virtue of its payment of workers’ compensation benefits to Huwer as an otherwise allegedly non-covered employee as defined by Section 440.04, Florida Statutes (1981). This is so because Huwer (a) was never employed by FP & L, and (b) was not otherwise excluded or exempted from the protection of the Workers’ Compensation Act [hereinafter “the Act”]— both of which are circumstances required by the above statute in order for the employer to acquire the exclusivity defense as to tort claims of otherwise non-covered employees. We reject the contrary arguments of FP & L, including the argument that Huwer was an independent contractor and was therefore excluded from protection of the Act under Section 440.-02(2)(d)(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Huwer was an employee of an independent contractor, but was never an independent contractor herself; she was plainly covered by the Act as an employee of Wackenhut. See Gulfstream Land & Devel. Corp. v. Wilkerson, 420 So. 2d 587, 590 (Fla.1982); Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56, 59-60 (Fla.1973); Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1972); Toney Builders, Inc. v. Huddleston, 149 So. 2d 38, 40 (Fla.1963).
Third, the trial court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in refusing to allow FP & L to assert the above affirmative defense because FP & L was not entitled to the proposed defense as a matter of law. See Davis v. Sun First Nat’l Bank of Orlando, 408 So. 2d 608, 610 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 413 So. 2d 875 (Fla.1982); Burnside v. McCrary, 384 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Wilisch v. Wilisch, 335 So. 2d 861, 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The final judgment under review is accordingly
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cartier v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 594 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…FPL had a contractual obligation to provide coverage; b) if it did provide coverage; and c) if the work was done on FPL’s property, then section 440.11 provides immunity from negligence suits. We distinguish Florida Power & Light Company v. Huwer, 508 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Florida Power & Light Co. v. Huwer also involved a tort claim arising from an injury of an employee of a subcontractor at a power plant. After the injury occurred, FPL agreed to provide workers’ compensation for Huwer. In Huwer,…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Turner, 540 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See McCormick v. Premiere Group, Inc., 523 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Huwer, 508 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); §§ 440.10; 440.11, Fla.Stat. (1985).…
-
Locke v. Suntrust Bank, 484 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)…e workers’ compensation liability of an employer “shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer .... ” Id. § 440.11. This is sometimes known as the workers’ compensation exclusivity bar. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Huwer, 508 So. 2d 489, 490 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987). The Florida courts have established a two-part, work-connectedness test for whether the exclusivity bar applies, which requires that a work-related injury must both (1) arise out of and (2) occur in the course of employm…
Authorities Cited
- Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1973)
- Smith v. Ussery, 261 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1972)
- Davis v. SUN First Nat'l Bank OF Orlando, 408 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Gulfstream Land & Dev. Corp. v. Wilkerson, 420 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1982)
- Wilisch v. Wilisch, 335 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Dukes v. Louie L. Wainwright, 149 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1963)
- Toney Builders, Inc. v. William Ed Huddleston & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 149 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1963)
- Burnside v. McCRARY, 384 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)