THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN MORGAN NETTLES, AND D.P. ENTERPRISES A/K/A DAVID PETREE ENTERPRISES, 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.
Travelers Insurance appeals a workers' compensation decision, arguing its policy was canceled before the claimant's injury. The court affirms, holding that the policy remained in force because notice of cancellation was not filed with the Division until after the injury occurred, and the employer continued to maintain the injured claimant in its employment.
The policy remained in force and effect at the time of injury. A workers' compensation policy cannot be considered canceled until notice of cancellation is sent to the Division and at least 30 days have elapsed. Because the notice was sent after the injury, the policy was still active. Additionally, the employer continued to maintain the claimant in employment, which precluded termination under the exception for employers with no covered employees.
[1] A workers' compensation insurance policy remains in full force and effect until properly canceled according to statutory requirements, even if the employer has ceased ope…
[2] A workers' compensation insurance policy cannot be considered canceled until at least 30 days have elapsed after notice of cancellation has been sent to the division and…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 policy cannot be considered canceled until after the occurrence of the claimant's industrial injury”
Establishes the central holding that because notice of cancellation was sent after the injury date, the policy remained active
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant was injured on February 18, 1985, while working for the employer. Although the employer notified the carrier in January that it had gone …
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.
ERVIN, Judge.
The dispute in this workers' compensation appeal centers around whether the workers’ compensation insurance policy issued by the carrier/appellant was in force and effect at the time of the claimant’s injury. We affirm.
The claimant was injured while working for the employer on February 18, 1985. Although the employer notified the carrier in January that it had gone out of business effective December 1, 1984, notification of cancellation of the policy was not mailed to the Division until February 26, 1985, following the date of the accident. Under such circumstances, the policy cannot be considered canceled until after the occurrence of the claimant’s industrial injury. Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, (1983), disallows the expiration or cancellation of a workers’ compensation insurance policy “until at least 30 days have elapsed after a notice of cancellation has been sent to the division and to the employer — ” To the same effect, see Fla.Admin.Code Rule 38F-6.008(1). See also Security Insurance Co. of New Haven v. King, 124 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla.1960) (“[A] workman’s compensation policy or contract of insurance, once issued, remains in full force and effect until can-celled on the records of the agency admin istering the workman’s compensation law.”).
Additionally, Rule 38F-6008(3) permits termination by providing to the Division the above notice in a situation where the employer goes out of business “and thereafter has no person in his employment covered by the provisions of the policy....” Despite the employer’s notification to the carrier before the accident that it had gone out of business, the record clearly establishes that it continued to maintain the claimant in its employment, and that he remained in such employment at the time of the work-related injury.
AFFIRMED.
JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bend v. Shamrock Servs. & Zenith Ins. Co., 59 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
Authorities Cited
- Sec. Ins. Co. OF NEW Haven v. King, 124 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1960)