BELFORD TRUCKING COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD JAMES PINSON, ETC., 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.
Belford Trucking Company appeals an order requiring it to pay workers' compensation benefits and attorneys' fees for a deceased employee of its subcontractor, H & H Refrigerated Trucking Service, which lacked workers' compensation coverage. The court affirmed, holding that under Florida Statute § 440.10, a general contractor remains liable for compensation benefits to employees of uninsured subcontractors and may seek reimbursement but cannot refuse payment.
The general contractor remains liable for workers' compensation benefits and attorneys' fees despite the subcontractor being the primary employer. The general contractor's right to seek reimbursement from the subcontractor does not discharge its obligation to pay benefits and fees, and the general contractor cannot refuse payment based on the subcontractor's primary liability.
[1] A general contractor is liable for workmen's compensation benefits to employees of a subcontractor if the subcontractor has not secured such payments.
[2] A general contractor's liability for workmen's compensation benefits to employees of a subcontractor is not discharged by a determination of the subcontractor's primary l…
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“the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payments”
This establishes the statutory basis for the general contractor's liability under § 440.10 when a subcontractor lacks workers' compensation coverage.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBelford Trucking Company was a general contractor that subcontracted work to H & H Refrigerated Trucking Service. H & H employed a worker who died and…
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.
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from the order of the Circuit Court, Marion County, entered pursuant to Florida Statute § 440.24, and directing that appellant, Belford Trucking Company, pay the costs and attorneys fees on behalf of the workmen’s compensation claimant,1 appellee herein.
The sole question presented is whether Belford may rightfully be required to pay those fees and costs since the Judge of Industrial Claims found that the employer of the deceased employee was H & H Refrigerated Trucking Service and that H & H was primarily liable for the payment of benefits and required to reimburse Belford for compensation benefits already paid the claimant.
We hold that the trial court properly awarded fees and costs against Belford under the provisions of Florida Statute § 440.-10, in pertinent part as follows:
“In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of thé employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged in such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payments . . .” (e.s.)
The undisputed facts in this case are, as found by the Judge of Industrial Claims, that Belford was in the relationship of a general contractor and H & H was the subcontractor, and employer of the deceased employee. It is also undisputed that the subcontractor, H & H, had not secured workmen’s compensation coverage. Under these circumstances, Chapter 440 contemplates that the claimant may go directly against the general contractor for compensation benefits due, that the general contractor is liable therefor without showing of any demand made, or refusal to pay on the part of the subcontractor [§ 440.10(2)], and that the general contractor’s rights are to seek reimbursement against the subcontractor, but not to refuse payment [§ 440.42(3)].
The intent and purpose of these provisions is to secure prompt payment of all amounts due to, or on behalf of, the claimant without regard to the primary or secondary responsibility of several employers/carriers and their rights to reimbursement.
In this case, the additional factor of Bel-ford’s responsibility and acceptance of the risk in subcontracting with H & H, a subcontractor without workmen’s compensation coverage, requires Belford pay these fees and costs, as it has all prior benefits, and seek reimbursement from its subcontractor. Belford’s obligation in this respect was not discharged by the order of the Judge of Industrial Claims determining H & H to be primarily liable.
Accordingly, Appellee’s motion for attorneys fees for services in this Court is GRANTED in the amount of $1,000,2 and the judgment below is AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur. . Fees for representation in death case before Judge of Industrial Claims and in the Rule nisi proceedings were $9,000 total.
. Steele v. A. D. H. Building Contractors, Inc., 196 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1967); McCormick v. Messink, 208 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1968).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Miami Herald Publ'g v. Hatch, 617 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…n of section 440.10(l)(b) argued by the E/C is contrary both to the compelling public policy underlying the statute and to our understanding of the decisional law construing the statutory employer doctrine. See, e.g., Belford Trucking Co. v. Pinson, 360 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Larson, 1C Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law § 49.15 (1993). The E/C maintain the case sub judice is controlled by Jenkins v. Peddie, 145 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1962), in which the supreme court rejected a claim that Peddie’s taxica…
-
Antinarelli v. Ocean Suite Hotel & Nation Wide Ins. Co., 642 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…that a general contractor will retain financial responsibility for injuries to those employees working a contract job, even though an independent contractor performs part or all of the undertaking.” 552 So. 2d at 926; Belford Trucking Co. v. Pinson, 360 So. 2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The JCC found that just such an “independent contractor arrangement” existed between Hotel and [*665] Moon. The statute makes no distinction between “contractor” and any specific kinds of contractors, Magarian v. Southern…
-
Barrow v. Shel Prods., Inc., 466 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…eceived from the manufacturer. We find this case to be controlled by the holdings in Hart v. National Air Lines, Inc., 217 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), cert. den. without opinion, 225 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1969), and Belford Trucking Company v. Pinson, 360 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Appellee argues that this court should affirm the deputy commissioner’s denial of the claim upon a finding that claimant was outside the course and scope of any employment with Shelton Trucking at the time of the accident. This…
Authorities Cited
- McCORMICK v. Fern Elizabeth Messink, 208 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Steele v. A. D. H. Bldg. Contractors, Inc., 196 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1967)