FREDDY ALVARADO, APPELLANT,
v.
MANRO, INCORPORATED, ET AL., 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.
Freddy Alvarado appealed a summary judgment in a negligence action against Manro, Inc., which was granted based on worker's compensation immunity. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in denying Alvarado's motion to amend his complaint to allege he was employed by Bernuth Lines rather than Manro, and that conflicting evidence regarding his actual employer precluded summary judgment.
The court held that: (1) the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend to allege employment by Bernuth Lines; (2) conflicting evidence as to whether the plaintiff was employed by Bernuth Lines or Manro, Inc. precluded summary judgment on worker's compensation immunity; and (3) payment of worker's compensation benefits does not afford immunity if the payor was not the actual employer, though any tort recovery would be reduced by benefits paid.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint to allege employment by a different entity when the evidence conflicts as to the plaintiff's emplo…
[2] Conflicting evidence regarding an employee's employer precludes summary judgment based on worker's compensation immunity.
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 trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his fourth amended complaint so as to allege that the plaintiff was employed by Bernuth Lines, rather than Manro, Inc., at the time of the subject accident”
Establishes the primary error—the court's denial of the amendment motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlvarado filed a negligence action and sought to amend his fourth amended complaint to allege that he was employed by Bernuth Lines rather than Manro,…
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 Employer-Employee Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a negligence action, Freddy Alvarado, from an adverse final summary judgment which was entered below based on the defendants’ worker’s compensation immunity. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on a holding that: (1) the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his fourth amended complaint so as to allege that the plaintiff was employed by Bernuth Lines, rather than Manro, Inc., at the time of the subject accident, Montero v. Compugraphic Corp., 531 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 449 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Schurkman v. Stolar, 347 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Bradham v. Hayes Enters., Inc., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); (2) the evidence in the record is in conflict as to whether the plaintiff was employed by Bernuth Lines or Manro, Inc. at the time of the subject accident, thereby precluding the entry of the instant summary judgment based on the defendants’ asserted worker’s compensation immunity, Rogers v. Barrett, 46 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1950); Lloyd v. Powell Bros., 382 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1376 (Fla.1980); Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 438 So. 2d 116, 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); and (3) the fact that Manro, Inc. paid the plaintiff worker’s compensation benefits does not in itself afford Manro, Inc. a worker’s compensation immunity against the instant suit if Manro, Inc. was not the employer of the plaintiff — although, any tort recovery obtained against Manro, Inc. would have to be reduced by the worker’s compensation benefits which Manro, Inc. paid to the plaintiff. Velez v. Oxford Dev. Co., 457 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 467 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.1985).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scottsdale Ins. v. GFM Operations, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (S.D. Fla. 2010)
Authorities Cited
- Wilda H. Bradham v. Hayes Enters., Inc., 306 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp. v. Dunn, 438 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Velez v. Oxford Dev. Co., 457 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Labrada v. State, 531 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Montero v. Compugraphic Corp., 531 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Schurkman v. Stolar, 347 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- OLD Republic Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 449 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Karan Hall, 382 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)