THOMAS BOWMAN AND MARY BOWMAN, PETITIONERS,
v.
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari, finding no direct conflict between the lower court's decision and prior appellate precedent regarding tort immunity for workers' compensation carriers that conduct their own safety inspections.
The Court found no direct conflict essential for jurisdiction and dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently issued. The Court distinguished the case from Gallichio, which involved an independent servicing corporation, not an insurance carrier itself.
[1] A motion to dismiss a complaint alleging negligence in safety inspections is not the proper procedural vehicle to determine the immunity of a workmen's compensation carrier under Fla.Stat. …
[2] A complaint alleging negligence in safety inspections may survive a motion to dismiss under theories of third-party beneficiary and third-party tortfeasor.
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 the instant case, contrary to Gallichio, the prime issue was the immunity of a workmen's compensation carrier that conducted its own safety inspections.”
Establishes the key distinction between this case and Gallichio regarding who performed the inspections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas and Mary Bowman filed a negligence complaint against Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, a workers' compensation carrier that had con…
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 Third Party Tortfeasor cases and more on FLexlaw
Certiorari was tentatively granted because it initially appeared that the per cur-iam affirmance rendered below, reported at 249 So.2d 695 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1971), might be in conflict with Gallichio v. Corporate Group Service, Inc., 227 So.2d 519 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1969).
On further review, we find the cases to be consistent. In Gallichio, an injured worker covered by the Longshoremen and Harbor Worker’s Act, 33 U.S.C., Chapter 18, filed a negligence complaint against a servicing corporation which had contracted to make safety inspections of the employer’s premises. It was alleged that the corporation was negligent in the performance of its safety inspections, and that the worker was a third party beneficiary of the servicing contract. The corporation countered with a motion to dismiss, contending that: the federal compensation act was the exclusive remedy; no reliance on the inspections was alleged; the corporation was not a third party tortfeasor. The cause was dismissed, pursuant to this motion.
On appeal, the Third District Court reversed, holding that the complaint was sufficient to survive under both the third party beneficiary and the third party tort-feasor theories. The District Court noted that on appeal the corporation asserted immunity under the compensation act, but it concluded that this was not a question applicable to the motion to dismiss, since the servicing corporation was not alleged to be an insurer in the complaint. Thus, no ruling was made on the immunity issue. We are not the first appellate court that has come to this conclusion; see Allen v. Employers Service Corporation, 243 So.2d 454 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1971), cert. den., 248 So.2d 167 (Fla.1971).
In the instant case, contrary to Gallichio, the prime issue was the immunity of a workmen’s compensation carrier that conducted its own safety inspections. The complaint below stated that the respondent insurance carrier was negligent in the performance of its inspection duties. No intermediate servicing corporation was involved in the complaint. A motion to dismiss was granted on the basis of the car*822rier’s assumed immunity to tort suit under Fla.Stat. § 440.11 (1969), F.S.A. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal below with a citation to Allen v. Employers Service Corporation, supra; one judge dissented for the reasons appearing in the dissent to the majority decision in the Allen case.
The direct conflict essential for the vesting of jurisdiction in this Court under Article V, Florida Constitution, F.S.A., is absent here. Therefore, the writ heretofore granted should be, and hereby is, dismissed as improvidently issued.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carroll v. Zurich Ins. Co., 286 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…227 So. 2d 519, Allen v. Employers Service Corporation, 243 So. 2d 454 (certiorari denied by Supreme Court, 248 So. 2d 167); Bowman v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, 249 So. 2d 695 (certiorari dismissed by Supreme Court, 261 So. 2d 821); Bruce W. Little Plumbing Company, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 260 So. 2d 856. The Third District Court of Appeal in a recent case2 discusses and analyzes the cases of the Second District above cited, and concludes as did the Second D…
Authorities Cited
- Gallichio v. Corporate Grp. Serv., Inc., 227 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Allen v. Emp'rs Serv. Corp., 243 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Allen v. Emp'rs Serv. Corp., 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1971)
- Hunter v. Bohnert Roofing & Supply Co., 248 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1971)
- Bowman v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis., 249 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)