THE BREAKERS PALM BEACH, INC., D/B/A THE BREAKERS HOTEL, APPELLANT,
v.
KURT GLOGER, DEBORAH L. GLOGER, ANTONIO YUTRONIC, PATRICIA YUTRONIC, HERIBERTO CENTENO, JUANA M. CENTENO AND DAVID W. GIBBS, 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.
The Breakers Hotel appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity. The court addresses whether an order denying summary judgment on immunity grounds due to factual disputes is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi).
The order denying summary judgment on workers' compensation immunity grounds is appealable because the rule permits review of orders determining that a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law, which includes orders denying summary judgment due to factual issues.
[1] An order denying a motion for summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity is reviewable as a non-final order if it determines that a party is not entitled to…
[2] A non-final order denying summary judgment due to factual issues regarding workers' compensation immunity is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)…
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“that a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law”
States the language of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) permitting review of non-final orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Breakers Hotel sought summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity, arguing it was entitled to immunity as a matter of law. Plaintiffs…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(3)(C)(Vi) cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Defendant Breakers appeals an order denying its motion for summary judgment which was grounded on workers’ compensation immunity. The trial court denied the motion because it concluded that there were issues of fact regarding plaintiffs’ claim that defendant failed to warn its employees of conditions which were “substantially certain” to result in injury. Fisher v. Shenandoah General Constr. Co., 498 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1986). Plaintiff appellees move to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this order, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment because there are issues of fact as to the employer’s misconduct, is not appeal-able. We deny the motion.
In Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1992), our supreme court promulgated Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) to permit review of non-final orders which determine:
that a party is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law.
Appellees argue that this rule permits review only of orders determining once and for all that there is no workers’ compensation immunity, and does not permit review of orders merely determining, as this order did, that the issue of workers’ compensation immunity is an issue of fact. We conclude that the appellees’ interpretation of the amendment is too narrow.
If the words “as a matter of law” had been placed at the beginning of the amendment, rather than at the end, appellees’ argument would be persuasive. Under that scenario the rule would permit review of non-final orders which determine “as a matter of law that a party is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity”. The key words, when placed at the beginning, modify “determine”. By putting the key words at the end, however, the court gave the amendment a broader meaning. They modify “entitled”. The denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, because there were issues of fact, is an order determining that the defendant is “not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law”. We therefore deny the motion to dismiss. Our view is supported by Ross v. Baker, 632 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (the amendment authorizes review of orders denying summary judgment because of factual issues as well as because of legal questions).
We therefore deny the motion to dismiss.
HERSEY and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001)…n private or public employment.” . Although prior case law allowed interlocutory appeals of denials of summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity where disputed issues of material fact existed, see Breakers Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gloger, 646 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), this Court amended Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) in 1996 to clarify that appeals of orders denying summary judgment asserting workers’ compensation immunity may only be taken when the denial is as a matt…
-
Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes OF Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2004)…ule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3) should again be amended so that the rule is in its originally adopted form. I agree that the rule, as originally adopted, would then be construed as it was by Judge Klein in Breakers Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gloger, 646 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), following Judge Altenbernd’s earlier opinion in Ross v. Baker, 632 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). CANTERO and BELL, JJ., concur.…1 / 2
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996)…ndment to rule 9.110(d). 1996 Amendment. The amendment to subdivision (a)(3)(C)(vi) moves the phrase “as a matter of law” from the end of the subdivision to its beginning. This is to resolve the confusion evidenced in Breakers Palm Beach v. Gloger, 646 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), City of Lake Mary v. Franklin, 668 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and their progeny by clarifying that this subdivision was not intended to grant a right of nonfinal review if the lower tribunal denies a motion for summary judg…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992)
- Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co., 498 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1986)
- Ross v. Baker, 632 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)