Employer Immunity Cases

Coastal Masonry v. Gutierrez, 30 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010)

The carrier denied the workers’ compensation claim as the claim was not timely reported and the claimant’s condition was not the result of an injury or acceding arising out of and in the course and scope of employment. The claimant then filed a negligence action against the employer, which asserted workers’ compensation immunity as an affirmative defense. The trial judge held that the employer was not permitted to raise this defense. The claimant appealed and the 3rd District Court of Appeal (DCA) held that the employer could not have it both ways: they could not deny the workers’ compensation claim on the theory that there was no accident in the course and scope of employment, and at the same time argue that they were entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. Accordingly, the 3rd DCA determined that the employer could not assert workers’ compensation immunity as an affirmative defense in this negligence action.

Catalfumo Construction, LLC v. Varella, 28 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2010)

Catalfumo was the general contractor and claimant Varella was an employee of a subcontractor. On the date of accident the claimant was injured when he was riding his bicycle out of the gate on the construction site to go home and he fell over some cement. He brought a workers’ compensation claim against the subcontractor, which denied the claimant as the accident was not within the course and scope of employment. The claimant then sued Catalfumo, the general contractor, for negligence. Catalfumo asserted an affirmative defense of workers’ compensation immunity, but the trial judge held Catalfumo was not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. Catalfumo appealed and the 3rd DCA held that Catalfumo was a statutory employer, which is obligated by law to provide workers’ compensation coverage when a subcontractor does not. Therefore, the 3rd DCA held that since Catalfumo had the duty to provide coverage in the absence of coverage by the subcontractor, it was entitled to the protection of workers’ compensation immunity in a negligence action. The 3rd DCA remanded the case back to the trial court to allow Varella to assert his claim for workers’ compensation benefits against Catalfumo and to allow Catalfumo to assert any applicable affirmative defenses.

Disclaimer: The information contained herein is not to be construed as legal advice and is not meant to be a substitute for legal advice. Zenith insurance company (“zenith”) makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, guarantees or conditions of compliance with applicable laws or regulations and such compliance is ultimately the responsibility of the employer. Zenith expressly disclaims any and all liability with respect to any actions taken or not taken based upon the information contained in this presentation or with respect to any errors or omissions contained in such information. The information contained herein is not applicable in all jurisdictions of the united states. The jurisdiction you are in, changes in the law or regulations, or the specific facts of an individual case may result in different interpretations of the law or process than those presented herein.