BELL BROKERAGE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERTO QUINTERO, 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.
Bell Brokerage appeals a workers' compensation award that included the value of damaged food items and food samples in calculating the claimant's average weekly wage. The court affirmed the inclusion of a company car's value but reversed the inclusion of food items, holding that such items do not constitute compensable wages under Florida law.
The court held that the value of damaged food items and manufacturers' food samples should not be included in average weekly wage calculations because they do not constitute wages under Florida law. The court affirmed the inclusion of the company car's value. To qualify as wages, noncash fringe benefits must be provided as consideration for services performed on behalf of the employer, and the reasonable value must reflect the actual cost to the employer.
[1] The value of a company car used for both personal and business purposes may be included in a claimant's average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits.
[2] Damaged food items taken home by an employee for personal use are not considered wages for the purpose of calculating average weekly wage in workers' compensation benefit…
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“Although a claimant may in some cases be entitled to include noncash fringe benefits in a calculation of AWW, the value of damaged food items and food samples in this case should not be included.”
Establishes the general rule that noncash fringe benefits may qualify but sets the standard for this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberto Quintero was a salesman for Bell Brokerage Company. When retail stores returned damaged goods (dented cans, crushed frozen dinners, cans with …
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 Average Weekly Wage (Aww) Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Bell Brokerage Company appeals from an award of compensation benefits in which the judge of compensation claims (JCC) increased the amount of claimant’s average weekly wage (AWW) to include the value of damaged food stuffs and manufacturers’ food samples, and the value of the company car that claimant used for personal as well as business purposes. We approve the JCC’s order as it pertains to the company car, but reverse that portion of the order that includes the value of food items in claimant’s AWW.
Claimant, Roberto Quintero, was formerly a salesman for food broker Bell Brokerage. When retail stores returned damaged goods to Bell Brokerage for credit, e.g., dented cans, crushed frozen dinners, or cans with missing labels, claimant took such items home for his personal use. In addition, claimant took home samples of food products provided by the manufacturers. The president of Bell Brokerage testified that he did not permit his employees to appropriate damaged goods for their own use, but that he did give them food samples.
Although a claimant may in some cases be entitled to include noncash fringe benefits in a calculation of AWW, the value of damaged food items and food samples in this case should not be included. This court has stated that such benefits must be provided to the claimant as consideration for services performed on behalf of the employer in order to qualify as “wages” under Section 440.02(21), Florida Statutes (1987). Delong v. 3015 West Corp., 491 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Imperial Bird Co. v. Beyer, 472 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In this case, as in Delong, no wage-type value could be assigned the materials. The claimant could not have used his own funds to purchase the damaged food items, because many of them, if not all, could not be legally sold.
Moreover, although the manufacturers’ food samples could arguably be characterized as part of the employer’s compensation to its employees, section 440.02(21) provides that "the reasonable value of such compensation shall be the actual cost to the employer.” (Emphasis added.) The food samples that Bell gave his salespeople were given to him by the manufacturers, therefore, there was no cost to the employer. For the above reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case with directions that the JCC reduce the claimant’s AWW by the $25.00 attributed to the value of the food items.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Univ. OF Miami Med. Sch. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Singleton, 582 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…f $836.33 per month, tuition reimbursement of $598 per month, and a lump-sum award of $5,000, equalling $416.67 per month. He therefore found claimant’s proper AWW to be $426.46. We reverse the judge’s order based on Bell Brokerage Co. v. Quintero, 556 So. 2d 793, 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Bell at 794, this court held that “benefits must be provided to claimant as consideration for services performed on behalf of the employer in order to qualify as ‘wages.’ ” See also § 440.15(2), Fla.Stat. (TTD based on p…
Authorities Cited
- Delong v. 3015 W. Corp. & Rockwood Ins. Co., 491 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Imperial Bird Co. & INA/Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gale Beyer, 472 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)