JULIAN CONSOLIDATED, INC., AND AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY CO., APPELLANTS,
v.
JACK CONRAD AND CHARLES COLLINS, 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.
Julian Consolidated appeals a workers' compensation award finding it and Charles Collins jointly liable as statutory employers for benefits owed to an employee. The court affirmed, holding that competent substantial evidence supported the deputy commissioner's finding of a joint venture based on their agreement to construct a spec house with shared profits and losses.
The court affirmed the workers' compensation award, holding that competent substantial evidence supported the finding of a joint venture. Although the case did not present textbook mutuality of control, the arrangement—where neither party had exclusive control and they shared profits and losses while Julian provided workers' compensation coverage—constituted a joint venture establishing statutory employer status.
[1] Competent substantial evidence in the record supports a finding that parties operated as a joint venture for workers' compensation purposes.
[2] A joint venture may be established by evidence of shared profits and an agreement, express or implied, to share losses.
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“It is clear, however, that neither party had exclusive control over this undertaking which, reduced to its essentials, was an agreement between the parties to construct a "spec" house, with one party (Collins) furnishing the construction skills and "know-how" and the other (Julian) providing the capital, with an express agreement to split profits fifty-fifty, and an agreement implied from circumstances (as Collins testified based on his understanding) to share losses on the same basis.”
Establishes the court's analysis of the joint venture elements, showing how the parties' respective contributions and profit-sharing arrangement satisfied the joint venture requirement despite lack of textbook mutual control.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulian Consolidated and Charles Collins entered into an agreement to construct a spec house. Collins provided construction skills and know-how while J…
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 Joint Venture Elements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Julian Consolidated, Inc., appeals an award of workers’ compensation benefits against Julian Consolidated and Charles Collins, acting as a joint venture. We affirm.
Julian Consolidated argues on appeal that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the deputy’s finding that Julian Consolidated and Charles Collins operated as a joint venture. After examining the record, we conclude that there was competent substantial evidence to support the compensation order. Appellants argue primarily that the deputy commissioner erred in finding that a joint venture between Julian and Collins existed. The most troublesome aspect of this issue is whether there existed the element of joint control or right of control between the parties. Livingston v. Twyman, 43 So. 2d 354 (Fla.1950); Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1957).
Admittedly this is not a textbook case of mutuality of control. It is clear, however, that neither party had exclusive control over this undertaking which, reduced to its essentials, was an agreement between the parties to construct a “spec” house, with one party (Collins) furnishing the construction skills and “know-how” and the other (Julian) providing the capital, with an express agreement to split profits fifty-fifty, and an agreement implied from circumstances (as Collins testified based on his understanding) to share losses on the same basis. See, Russell v. Thielen, 82 So. 2d 143 (Fla.1955); Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Florida Trading and Investment Co., Inc. v. River Construction Services, Inc., 537 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
In addition, the deputy commissioner specifically found that Julian agreed to provide workers’ compensation coverage for this project, and concluded that both Collins and Julian were statutory employers for workers’ compensation purposes. See, Allison Development, Inc. v. Rudasill, 202 So. 2d 752 (Fla.1967) (developer of subdivision was statutory employer of employee hired by subcontractor on house construction job).
We find that to reach a conclusion contrary to that of the deputy commissioner would entail a reweighing of the evidence, which we decline to do.
Accordingly, we affirm the award as predicated on the findings of the deputy commissioner. However, we do not reach the second issue presented, which is whether Julian Consolidated was liable for benefits under a theory of estoppel.
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and SMITH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vannamei Corp. v. Elite Int'l Telecomms., Inc., 881 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…is fatal to Elite’s joint venture defense. See Conklin Shows, 684 So. 2d at 332 (joint venture not proven where no mutual control over operations could be demonstrated; appellant had exclusive control over operations); Julian Consol, Inc. v. Conrad, 553 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(affirming finding that joint venture existed because parties shared joint control where neither party had exclusive control over the undertaking); McKissick v. Bilger, 480 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(no joint venture proven wh…
Authorities Cited
- Kislak v. Koren Kreedian, 95 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1957)
- Fla. Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Russell v. Thielen, 82 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1955)
- Danelia Gomez v. Gomez (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Allison Developments, Inc. v. Orene F. Rudasill & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 202 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1967)
- Fla. Trading & Inv. Co., Inc. v. River Constr. Servs., Inc., 537 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)