REGENCY ELECTRIC COMPANY AND CNA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY HONRATH, 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.
Regency Electric Company and its insurance carrier CNA appealed a workers' compensation order finding them estopped from denying Florida jurisdiction over an employee's claim. The court reversed, holding that the claimant failed to prove the necessary elements of estoppel, particularly that he changed his position in reliance on the carrier's misrepresentation about coverage jurisdiction.
The court reversed because Honrath failed to establish estoppel. To prove estoppel, he was required to show: (1) the carrier misrepresented a material fact, (2) he relied on the misrepresentation, and (3) he changed his position to his detriment. Honrath did not present evidence that he changed his position based on his understanding of Florida coverage.
[1] An employee injured out of state may receive Florida workers' compensation benefits only if the employment contract was made in Florida or the employment was principally…
[2] To establish estoppel in a workers' compensation case, the claimant must prove that the employer/carrier misrepresented a material fact, the claimant relied upon the misr…
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“In order to establish estoppel, Honrath was required to prove: (1) the E/C misrepresented a material fact, (2) Honrath relied upon the misrepresentation, and (3) he changed his position based on the misrepresentation, to his detriment.”
Establishes the three-part test for estoppel that Honrath failed to satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenry Honrath was injured on a job in Georgia and voluntarily returned to Jacksonville, Florida. He asked the carrier whether he could receive benefit…
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 Workers' Compensation Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
The employer, Regency Electric Company, and its carrier, CNA Insurance Company (E/C), appeal a nonfinal order on jurisdiction wherein the judge of compensation claims (JCC) held that the E/C were estopped from raising the defense that claimant, Henry Honrath, is not entitled to compensation benefits under Florida law, because claimant entered into his employment contract in Georgia. In that Honrath failed to prove estoppel, we reverse and remand.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 440.09(1), Florida Statutes (1991), an employee injured out of state may receive Florida compensation benefits only if the employment contract was made in Florida or the employment was principally located in Florida. Honrath was injured on a job in Georgia and voluntarily returned to his home in Jacksonville, Florida, where he asked the carrier whether he could receive benefits under the Florida workers’ compensation system rather than Georgia’s, because the benefits are higher.1 Both claimant and the carrier initially believed Honrath entered his contract with the employer in Florida, so the carrier approved the transfer, but the carrier eventually determined that the contract was executed in Georgia and returned the claim.
Without expressly deciding the issue of where the parties made their agreement, the JCC concluded that the carrier voluntarily transferred jurisdiction from Georgia to Florida and authorized numerous physicians and procedures in Florida, leading Honrath to believe that he was properly receiving benefits under the Florida system; therefore, the E/C were estopped from raising the defense that Florida’s workers’ compensation law does not apply to this claim. We reverse, because Honrath failed to prove estoppel.
In order to establish estoppel, Hon-rath was required to prove: (1) the E/C misrepresented a material fact, (2) Honrath relied upon the misrepresentation, and (3) he changed his position based on the misrepresentation, to his detriment. Rissman v. Kilbourne, 643 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Honrath did not put on evidence that he changed his position in any way based upon his understanding that he was covered under the Florida system. Lafave v. Bay Consol. Distribs., 546 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The erroneous payment of Florida benefits cannot create workers’ compensation coverage that does not otherwise exist. Azarian v. Azarian, 166 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1964) (en bane); Tradewinds Constr. v. Newsbaum, 606 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1993).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., concur. . Honrath is entitled to $425 per week under Florida law or $250 per week under Georgia law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deere v. Sarasota Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Integrated Administrators, Inc., 880 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…estoppel, Appellant must show that (1) the E/C misrepresented a material fact; (2) Appellant relied on the misrepresentation; and (3) Appellant changed her position to her detriment because of the misrepresentation. See Regency Elec. Co. v. Honrath, 673 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Appellant’s allegations of estoppel are facially sufficient and should have been considered by the JCC. Where an E/C misleads a claimant about his or her rights or availability of workers’ compensation, even unintentionally, r…
Authorities Cited
- Rissman v. Kilbourne, 643 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Lafave v. BAY Consol. Distribs., 546 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Azarian v. Vartan Azarian, 166 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1964)
- Tradewinds Constr. & Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Newsbaum, 606 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)