LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND NORMA J. PEELE, APPELLANTS,
v.
COLLEEN M. STEADMAN, 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.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and its agent Norma Peele appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim brought by Colleen Steadman, a workers' compensation claimant. The appellate court reversed, holding that workers' compensation immunity under Florida law bars such claims when they arise from delayed payment of benefits.
Workers' compensation immunity bars claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress that arise from a carrier's delay in paying benefits. The exclusive remedy for such claims is under the Workers' Compensation Act, and a claimant cannot transform a delay in payments into an actionable tort by characterizing the delay as outrageous or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
[1] Workers' compensation immunity applies to claims against a compensation carrier for injuries covered by the Act.
[2] A compensation carrier is not immune from wrongdoing that occurs independently of its handling of claims.
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“a compensation claimant cannot avoid the exclusivity of the Act and transform a delay in payments into an actionable tort cognizable in the Circuit Court simply by calling that delay outrageous, fraudulent, deceitful, or an intentional infliction of emotional distress”
Establishes the core principle that delays in benefit payments cannot be recharacterized as independent torts to circumvent workers' compensation immunity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColleen Steadman sought authorization and reimbursement for a bilateral lung transplant through her employer's workers' compensation insurance with Li…
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 Conduct Substantially Certain To Result In Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Norma J. Peele (the appellants) challenge the nonfinal order of the trial court which denied with prejudice their motion to dismiss Colleen M. Steadman’s complaint against them for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The appellants argue that they are immune from suit by virtue of the workers’ compensation immunity afforded in chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2002), the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act). We agree and reverse.
Colleen Steadman sought authorization and reimbursement for a bilateral lung transplant through her employer’s insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual. Her file was ultimately assigned to Norma Peele, an agent of Liberty Mutual, for processing. The benefits sought by Ms. Steadman under her workers’ compensation policy were either denied or discontinued due to the insurance company’s determination that a portion of Ms. Steadman’s requests were related to a preexisting condition.
Following a merit hearing regarding the denied benefits, a judge of compensation claims (JCC) ordered that Liberty Mutual authorize and pay for Ms. Steadman’s surgery and certain other items and services associated with the operation. Liberty Mutual failed to comply with the JCC’s order, and Ms. Steadman did not receive her transplant until approximately nine months later. Following the surgery, Ms. Steadman filed suit in circuit court for intentional infliction of emotional distress, contending that the appellants’ conduct in delaying authorization for her surgery was motivated by greed and was a deliberate act intended to cause her stress and accelerate her demise.
The appellants moved to dismiss Ms. Steadman’s complaint with prejudice and argued that her only avenue of relief was under the Act. The trial court denied their motion, finding that Ms. Steadman had exhausted all of her administrative remedies and that the appellants were not entitled to immunity under the Act. We disagree.
Courts have recognized an exception to workers’ compensation immunity in cases that involve intentional torts. Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So. 2d 683, 686 (Fla.2000) (citing Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537, 539 (Fla.1993)). Those cases focus on the conduct of the employer and apply an objective standard to determine whether the employer exhibited a deliberate intent to injure the employee or engaged in conduct that was “substantially certain” to result in injury to the employee. Id. See also Sierra v. Associated Marine Insts., Inc., 850 So. 2d 582, 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review denied, 869 So. 2d 538 (Fla.2004); Fred G. Wright, Inc. v. Edwards, 642 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Allstates Fireproofing, Inc. v. Garcia, 876 So. 2d 1222, 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Here, Ms. Steadman filed a complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress against her employer’s workers’ compensation carrier. A circuit court has no jurisdiction over an action against a compensation carrier for injuries covered by the Act. Southeast Adm’rs, Inc. v. Moriarty, 571 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, a compensation carrier is not immune from wrongdoing that occurs independently of its handling of claims. Inservices, Inc. v. Aguilera, 837 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review granted, 847 So. 2d 975 (Fla.2003). Courts considering whether a carrier’s actions are independent of its claims handling consistently hold that the exclusive remedy for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional dis tress arising from a delay in payment is under the Act. Id.; Moriarty, 571 So. 2d at 590; Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Whitworth, 442 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (holding that “a compensation claimant cannot avoid the exclusivity of the Act and transform a delay in payments into an actionable tort cognizable in the Circuit Court simply by calling that delay outrageous, fraudulent, deceitful, or an intentional infliction of emotional distress”).
Ms. Steadman’s claim is based entirely on Liberty Mutual’s delay in paying the benefits awarded to her by the JCC. This claim does not fall within any exception to the statutory immunity afforded the carrier by the Act. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to dismiss Ms. Steadman’s complaint.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
CANADY and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanders v. City OF Orlando, 997 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2008)…Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority that the decision below, Flamily v. City of Orlando, 924 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), directly conflicts with multiple district court decisions including Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steadman, 895 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Southeast Administrators, Inc. v. Moriarty, 571 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); and Covert v. Hall, 467 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). These cases do not interpret the particular subsection of the statute at issue here. I would t…1 / 2
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & Norma J. Peele v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…KELLY, Judge. This case is before us on remand from the Florida Supreme Court. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Steadman, 895 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), this court reversed the trial court order denying Liberty Mutual and Norma Peele’s motions to dismiss the complaint Colleen Steadman filed against them alleging a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Liberty Mu…
-
Protegrity Servs., Inc. v. Brehm, 901 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (allegations of delay, outrageous misconduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in handling claim, fall within exclusive jurisdiction of workers’ compensation judge); accord Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 895 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Finally, in the claim for violation of fiduciary duty, Brehm asserts that Protegrity did not timely, honestly, and competently handle her workers’ compensation claim. Again, Brehm’s allegations involve the handling of Brehm’s wo…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2000)
- Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1993)
- Marysol Sierra v. Associated Marine Insts., Inc., 850 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- OLD Republic Ins. Co. v. The Honorable Lewis B. Whitworth, 442 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Inservices, Inc. v. Rodrigo Aguilera, 837 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Allstates Fireproofing, Inc. v. Garcia, 876 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Kelly v. The Edge Grp., P.A., 571 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Fred G. Wright, Inc. v. Edwards, 642 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)