FLY & FORM, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MARLON MARQUEZ, MOSS & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.P., AND MAXIM CRANE WORKS, L.L.C., 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.
An employer is entitled to the exclusivity defense under Florida's workers' compensation statute, even if it initially denied benefits.
[1] An employer is entitled to the exclusivity defense under Florida's workers' compensation statute, shielding it from tort liability for employee injuries.
[2] An employer is not estopped from asserting the exclusivity defense of the workers' compensation statute, even if it previously denied the employee workers' compensation b…
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 intelligenceAn employee sued his employer for personal injuries sustained at work, receiving workers' compensation benefits. The employer discovered the employee …
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 Employer Immunity From Tort Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Fly & Form, Inc. appeals the trial court’s entry final judgment in which the court denied Fly & Form’s motion for summary judgment and granted appellee Marlon Marquez’s cross-motion for summary judgment. We reverse because Fly & Form, as the employer, was entitled to the exclusivity defense as set forth in Florida’s workers’ compensation statute.
This appeal arises out of a personal injury suit brought by Marquez as a result of injuries he sustained while employed with Fly & Form. Following the accident, Marquez received workers’ compensation benefits as well as temporary disability *404payments, including medical bills and indemnity benefits. Fly & Form later learned that Marquez had used a fake social security number on his employment application and W-4 form. Fly & Form then denied further workers’ compensation benefits. Marquez filed suit, and Fly & Form asserted that it was immune from tort liability, pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A few months later, workers’ compensation benefits resumed, and the outstanding temporary disability benefits were paid. Because Marquez had also reached maximum medical improvement, he was paid for bodily impairment and the remaining medical bills.
Fly <& Form moved for summary judgment based on the exclusivity of workers’ compensation benefits and its immunity from suit as Marquez’s employer. We conclude that the trial court erred when it denied Fly & Form’s motion for summary judgment. Fly & Form was not estopped from asserting the exclusivity defense of the workers’ compensation statute, even though it had denied Marquez further workers’ compensation benefits. See Coca-Cola Enters., Inc. v. Montiel, 985 So.2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that Coca-Cola was not entitled to the exclusivity defense of the workers’ compensation statute because the employer had denied the employee workers’ compensation benefits). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s final judgment and remand for entry of summary judgment in Fly & Form’s favor.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coastal Masonry, Inc. v. Bayardo Gutierrez, 30 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…employee’s tort action was not barred when employee relied on employer’s statement that no workers’ compensation coverage existed and did not make a workers’ compensation claim and received no compensation benefits); cf. Fly & Form, Inc. v. Marquez, 19 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that employer is not es-topped from asserting exclusivity defense when it denied employee further workers’ compensation benefits); Coca-Cola Enters., Inc. v. Montiel, 985 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (same); Ashby, 2009 W…
-
Ocean Reef Club, Inc. v. Cherrye Wilczewski and Laura Leon, 99 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…orkmen’s Compensation Law when the employee relied on the employ [*14] er’s statement that no workers’ compensation coverage existed and employee did not make a workers’ compensation claim nor received any benefits); cf. Fly & Form, Inc. v. Marquez, 19 So. 3d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (holding that employer is not estopped from asserting exclusivity defense when it denied employee further workers’ compensation benefits); Tractor Supply Co. v. Kent, 966 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (finding employer who a…
-
Fist Constr., Inc. v. Obando, 237 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…thin the statutory administrative process applicable to workers' compensation claims. And an initial denial of liability or benefits does not automatically estop an employer from asserting workers' compensation immunity. Fly & Form, Inc. v. Marquez, 19 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). The primary case advanced by Mr. Obando's counsel before the trial court, Ocean Reef Club, Inc. v. Wilczewski, 99 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), is distinguishable. In that case, the workers' compensation insurer denied two employ…
Authorities Cited
- Coca-Cola Enters., Inc. v. Aquilino J. Montiel & Kash N' Karry Food Stores, Inc., 985 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)