CATALFUMO CONSTRUCTION, LLC D/B/A SEAWOOD BUILDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
LINWOOD VARELLA, 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.
Catalfumo Construction appeals a trial court order denying its motion for summary judgment based on workers' compensation immunity. The appellate court reverses, holding that Catalfumo qualifies as a statutory employer under Florida law and is therefore entitled to workers' compensation immunity despite being the general contractor rather than the direct employer.
Catalfumo, as a general contractor, qualifies as a statutory employer under section 440.11, Florida Statutes, and is therefore entitled to workers' compensation immunity. Because Catalfumo has a duty to provide workers' compensation coverage in the absence of such coverage by the subcontractor, it is protected from negligence suits by the injured employee.
[1] A general contractor is entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a statutory employer when the subcontractor fails to provide workers' compensation coverage.
[2] A general contractor obligated to provide workers' compensation coverage due to a subcontractor's failure is protected from negligence suits by the exclusivity provision…
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“Catalfumo is a statutory employer as defined in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2005), and, as such, is obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance when the subcontractor does not.”
Establishes the core holding that general contractors qualify as statutory employers with mandatory coverage obligations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLinwood Varella worked as an electrician for RAMS, a subcontractor of Catalfumo Construction. While leaving a construction site on his bicycle, Varell…
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 Going And Coming Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Catalfumo Construction, LLC d/b/a Sea-wood Builders (“Catalfumo”), appeals a non-final order in favor of the appellant, Linwood Varella, upon a finding that Ca-talfumo is not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law. We reverse the finding of the trial court upon the holding that Catalfumo is a statutory employer under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2005), and is therefore entitled to workers’ compensation immunity.
The appellant, Varella, worked for RAMS, a subcontractor of Catalfumo, as an electrician. As he was going home on his bicycle out of the gate on the construction site, he fell over some cement runoff and was injured. Varella brought a workers’ compensation claim against RAMS. RAMS’s carrier denied compensability on grounds that the accident was not within the course and scope of employment. Var-ella then sued Catalfumo, the general contractor, for negligence. Catalfumo moved for summary judgment and contended that it was entitled to statutory immunity and that the claim was barred by the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation statute. The trial judge denied Catalfumo’s motion for summary judgment and held that it was not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law. Catalfumo seeks non-final review of the trial court’s order denying summary judgment on grounds of workers’ compensation immunity. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v). We find that Catalfumo is entitled to workers’ compensation immunity as a statutory employer and reverse.
On this non-final appeal, our scope of review is limited to the issue of whether the general contractor, Catalfumo, is entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v); Ramos v. Univision Holdings, Inc., 655 So.2d 89 (Fla.1995) (holding that district courts should not permit Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) to be used as a conduit “through which to seek interlocutory appeals of denial of motions for summary judgment on grounds other than workers’ compensation immunity”). We find that Catalfumo is a statutory employer as defined in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2005), and, as such, is obligated to provide workers’ compensation insurance when the subcontractor *965does not. As a consequence of subcontractor RAMS’s denial of Varella’s claim, Ca-talfumo is required to provide workers’ compensation for its employee. Because Catalfumo has the duty to provide coverage in the absence of coverage by the subcontractor, Catalfumo is protected from suits-at-law such as this negligence cause of action. E.g., Eller v. Shova, 630 So.2d 537 (Fla.1993). The trial court’s finding of no workers’ compensation immunity as a matter of law is reversed.
We remand to the trial court to allow Varella to assert his claim for benefits against Catalfumo and for the purpose of allowing Catalfumo to raise any defenses it may have, if applicable.1,2
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VMS, Inc. v. Elvis Alfonso, 147 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…summary judgment in favor of Alfonso is reversed. Reversed and remanded. On En Banc Consideration During the pendency of this action, it has come to this Court’s attention that a statement made in dicta in Catalfumo Construction, LLC v. Varella, 28 So. 3d 963, 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), that as a consequence of a subcontractor’s insurer’s denial of a worker’s claim, the contractor at issue there was required to provide “workers’ compensation” for the subcontractor’s employee is at odds with the opinion here…
Authorities Cited
- Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1993)
- Ramos v. Univision Holdings, Inc., 655 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1995)
- Byerley v. Citrus Publ'g, Inc., 725 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Schroeder v. Peoplease Corp. & L & S Logistic Servs., Inc., 18 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)