Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Streeter v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2003The court in Streeter v. Sullivan, 509 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.1987), held that section 440.11(1) imposed liability on all employees, including corporate officers, executives, and supervisors, who act with gross negligence toward their fellow employees. [6] In response to Streeter, the 1988 legislature again amended section 440.11(1) to provide for, in the Florida Supreme Court's words, heightened immunity to policymaking types of employees by raising the degree of negligence necessary to maintain a civil tort action against such employees from gross negligence to culpable negligence when those em 1993Thereafter, in Streeter v. Sullivan, 509 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1987), we held that the term "coemployee" as used in section 440.11 (1) included vice-principal-type coemployees. | 1 | 2 |
Allen v. Estate of Carmangreen2 sentences1992Allen, 281 So.2d at 322 . *853 We cannot agree with Mandico that the benefits of chapter 440 are not secured for one excluded from the definition of "employee" simply because, in accordance with the parties' contract, a general contractor deducts the cost of the premiums for the workers' compensation policy from payments due the excluded individual. 1980Allen v. Estate of Carman, 281 So.2d 317, 322 (Fla.1973). | 1 | 2 |
List Industries, Inc. v. Daliengreen2 sentences2013Therefore, “this issue is amenable to being decided on summary judgment.” Id. 2013This standard is very hard to meet because liability under section 440.11 “was intended to be the rarest of exceptions to the immunity granted to the employer.” List Indus. v. Dalien, 107 So.3d 470, 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2009“A weighing of the relative fault of tortfeasors has no place in the concept of indemnity for the one seeking indemnity must be without fault.” Id. 2009If the Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden of proof, then the Appellants are protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provision in section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, which states that an employer’s liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act is “exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee.... ” Common law indemnity “shifts the entire loss from one who, although without active negligence or fault, has been obligated to pay, because of some vicarious, constructive, derivative, or technical | 1 | 1 |
Eller v. Shovagreen1 sentence2003Eller, 630 So.2d at 541 (Fla.1993). [7] See also Subileau v. S. Forming, Inc., 664 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) ("The new language [of section 440.11(1)] provides that both employers and those in a managerial capacity are immune from suit for on-the-job injuries sustained by employees, unless the employer or manager's conduct amounts to criminal conduct punishable by more than 60 days imprisonment under *16 the applicable criminal statute."). | 1 | 1 |
Subileau v. Southern Forming, Inc.green1 sentence2003Eller, 630 So.2d at 541 (Fla.1993). [7] See also Subileau v. S. Forming, Inc., 664 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) ("The new language [of section 440.11(1)] provides that both employers and those in a managerial capacity are immune from suit for on-the-job injuries sustained by employees, unless the employer or manager's conduct amounts to criminal conduct punishable by more than 60 days imprisonment under *16 the applicable criminal statute."). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. PCR, INC.green1 sentence2000See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Florida Power Corp.
green
2 sentences1989Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954); McCormick v. Premiere Group, Inc., 523 So.2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). 1976In Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285 (Fla. 1954), our Supreme Court held that before a party is entitled to the immunity provided by these sections there must be a contractual obligation on the part of the contractor, a portion of which he sublets to another. | 2 | 1976–1989 |
Zeiger Crane Rentals, Inc. v. Double a Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Zeiger, 16 So.3d at 913 ; see also § 440.10(1)(e). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Maxson Const. Co., Inc. v. Welch
green
1 sentence2007In addition, the court held that Maxson was immune from tort liability under section 440.11(2), because, through the employee leasing arrangement, "the purpose of the workers' compensation law was served in accordance with statutory requirements, and [claimant was] not entitled to a second bite at the apple by suing Maxson in tort." Id. at 590 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Michael v. Centex-Rooney Const. Co.
green
1 sentence1997In support of their argument, the appellees relied principally on the cases of Michael v. Centex-Rooney Construction Co., 645 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), and State, Department of Transportation v. V.E. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Mandico, 605 So.2d at 852 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
McCormick v. Premiere Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954); McCormick v. Premiere Group, Inc., 523 So.2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Sidney J. MacArages v. Raymond Concrete Pile Company, Thomas Herring, Alias Jessie Thomas Herring v. Raymond Concrete Pile Company
green
1 sentence1981In Macarages v. Raymond Concrete Pile Company, 220 F.2d 891 (5th Cir.1955), the court held that the exclusive liability provision of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, was not the type of "contract, contrivance or device" prohibited in Section 769.06, Florida Statutes. [3] In reaching this decision, the court quoted language from the case of Winn-Lovett Tampa, Inc. v. Murphree, 73 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1954), stating (under a different context from that involved in this case) that the Workmen's Compensation Act is implicit in every employer-employee relationship irrespective of the nature of the empl | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree
red
1 sentence1981In Macarages v. Raymond Concrete Pile Company, 220 F.2d 891 (5th Cir.1955), the court held that the exclusive liability provision of Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, was not the type of "contract, contrivance or device" prohibited in Section 769.06, Florida Statutes. [3] In reaching this decision, the court quoted language from the case of Winn-Lovett Tampa, Inc. v. Murphree, 73 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1954), stating (under a different context from that involved in this case) that the Workmen's Compensation Act is implicit in every employer-employee relationship irrespective of the nature of the empl | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.