SYLVESTER CARAMICO, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1999-02-19
No. 98-2073
DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
727 So. 2d 348 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 18 cases

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.

Synopsis

Sylvester Caramico, an employee leased to Artcraft Industries through Administaff, injured himself at Artcraft's premises and received workers' compensation benefits. After suing Artcraft for negligence, the trial court granted summary judgment for Artcraft based on statutory immunity for employers using help supply services companies, which the appellate court affirmed.


Holding

Artcraft Industries was entitled to immunity from suit under Florida Statutes section 440.11(2) because it utilized services from a help supply services company (Administaff), the employee was treated as a borrowed employee, and workers' compensation benefits were secured by the help supply services company.


Headnotes

[1] An employer that utilizes the services of a help supply services company, such as an employee leasing company, is immune from suit by an employee injured on its premises…

[2] An employee leased to a company through an employee leasing service, who receives workers' compensation benefits from the leasing company, is barred from suing the compan…

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

Key Quotes

“The immunity from liability described in subsection (1) shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which utilizes the services of the employees of a help supply services company, as set forth in Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363, when such employees, whether management or staff, are acting in furtherance of the employer's business. An employee so engaged by the employer shall be considered a borrowed employee of the employer, and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer.”

This statutory provision establishes the basis for Artcraft's immunity from suit as an employer utilizing a help supply services company.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Caramico slipped and fell on a sanding disk cover while working at Artcraft's premises. He was employed by Administaff, a licensed employee leasing co…

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.


Opinion of the Court
GOSHORN, J.

GOSHORN, J.

Sylvester Caramico appeals a final judgment entered pursuant to a grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee Artcraft Industries, Inc. (“Artcraft”). We affirm.

Caramico injured his leg and back when he slipped and fell on a sanding disk cover while working on Artcraft’s premises. Caramico had been hired by Administaff, Inc., a licensed employee leasing company, and had been leased to Artcraft to make cabinets. Caramico had signed a contract with Admin-istaff evidencing the employment relationship and his assignment to Artcraft, and Adminis-taff and Artcraft had an agreement between themselves providing that Administaff would provide workers’ compensation coverage for the employees leased to Artcraft.

Caramico sought and received workers’ compensation benefits from Administaff, and then he sued Artcraft for negligence on a premises liability theory. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Artcraft, finding that Artcraft was entitled to immunity from suit under subsection 440.11, Florida Statutes (1997). This section provides in part:

(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee ... except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee ... may elect to claim compensation under this chapter or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of such injury or death.’...

(2) The immunity from liability described in subsection (1) shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which utilizes the services of the employees of a help supply services company, as set forth in Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363, when such employees, whether management or staff, are acting in furtherance of the employer’s business. An employee so engaged by the employer shall be considered a borrowed employee of the employer, and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer. The employer shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such borrowed employees as required in s. 440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help supply services company. Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363 defines “Help Supply Services” to include, inter alia, employee leasing services, temporary help services, and labor pools.

After the briefs were filed in the instant appeal, the Second District decided Maxson Construction Co., Inc. v. Welch, 720 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), a case which is factually and legally indistinguishable from the case at bar. An employee leasing company had leased an employee to an employer, the employee was injured, and the employee sued the employer despite receiving workers’ compensation benefits from the leasing company. The Second District, relying on subsection 440.11(2) and Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363, held that the employer was immune from suit as specifically provided for in the statute.

Similarly, here Artcraft is immune from, suit because of its use of the services of a help supply services company and the provision of worker’s compensation benefits by that company, Administaff. This is the precise situation contemplated by and addressed in the statute, and the circuit court properly entered summary judgment.

Caramico also challenges the grant of Art-craft’s motion to set aside the clerk’s default entered against it early in the case. This point is without merit.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Carib Ocean Shipping, Inc. v. Armas, 854 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
    …ply services company,” under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2002), which also employed the person who improperly operated the crane, see Fleming Companies, Inc. v. Moreira, 690 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Caramico v. Artcraft Indus., Inc., 727 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Maxson Constr. Co. v. Welch, 720 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), and (b) the only asserted basis of Carib’s liability to the plaintiff (and thus for the judgment below) was its claimed vicarious liability for that negligence as t…
  • ST. Lucie Falls Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Morelli, 956 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
    …Corp., 644 So. 2d 162, 165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Further, the OSHA Standard Industry Code lists employee leasing services, temporary help services, and labor pools as examples of help supply services companies. See Caramico v. Artcraft Indus., Inc., 727 So. 2d 348, 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In this case, while ADP Total Source was an employee leasing service, there was no direct contractual relationship between the Association, which asserted worker’s compensation immunity, and ADP Total Source. Instead, Adva…
    1 / 2
  • Biggins v. Fantasma Prods., 943 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
    …d an express contractual arrangement with the company supplying the employees. See, e.g., Folds v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 875 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Watson v. Job Corp., 840 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Caramico v. Artcraft Indus., Inc., 727 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Maxson Constr. Co. v. Welch, 720 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In dicta, this Court has commented that the definition of a help supply services company should be limited to situations involving day labor pools. Sagarino, 644 So…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw