election of remedies doctrine in Florida

2019“The election of remedies doctrine is an application of the doctrine of estoppel and operates on the theory that a party electing one course of action should not later be allowed to avail himself of an incompatible course.” Barbe v. Villeneuve, 505 So. 2d 1331, 1332 (Fla. 1987).

2010“The election of remedies doctrine is an application of the doctrine of estoppel and operates on the theory that a party electing one course of action should not later be allowed to avail himself of an incompatible course.” Barbe v. Villeneu *146 ve, 505 So.2d 1331, 1332 (Fla.1987) (citations omitted).

2018See Hernandez v. United Contractors Corp., 766 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (recognizing that the doctrine of election of remedies “is an application of a doctrine of estoppel and provides that the one electing should not later be permitted to avail himself of an inconsistent course”) (quoting Williams v. Robineau, 168 So. 644, 646 (Fla. 1936)); see also Schafer v. City of Pompano Beach v. IAFF, Local 1549, 39 F.P.E.R. ¶ 120 (2012) (“Section 447.401, Florida Statutes, raises an absolute statutory bar to re-litigating an employer’s disciplinary action in an unfair labor practice case wh

2004See Hernandez v. United Contractors Corp., 766 So.2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ("The doctrine of election of remedies `... is an application of the doctrine of estoppel and provides that the one electing should not later be permitted to avail himself of an inconsistent course.' Williams v. Robineau, 124 Fla. 422, 425 , 168 So. 644, 646 (1936).").

2018See Hernandez v. United Contractors Corp., 766 So. 2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (recognizing that the doctrine of election of remedies “is an application of a doctrine of estoppel and provides that the one electing should not later be permitted to avail himself of an inconsistent course”) (quoting Williams v. Robineau, 168 So. 644, 646 (Fla. 1936)); see also Schafer v. City of Pompano Beach v. IAFF, Local 1549, 39 F.P.E.R. ¶ 120 (2012) (“Section 447.401, Florida Statutes, raises an absolute statutory bar to re-litigating an employer’s disciplinary action in an unfair labor practice case wh

2004See Hernandez v. United Contractors Corp., 766 So.2d 1249, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ("The doctrine of election of remedies `... is an application of the doctrine of estoppel and provides that the one electing should not later be permitted to avail himself of an inconsistent course.' Williams v. Robineau, 124 Fla. 422, 425 , 168 So. 644, 646 (1936).").

2017Dozer, Inc., 777 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting Goldstein v. Serio, 566 So. 2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)).

2017Dozer, Inc., 777 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting Goldstein v. Serio, 566 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)).

2017Dozer, Inc., 777 So. 2d 421, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting Goldstein v. Serio, 566 So. 2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)).

2017Dozer, Inc., 777 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting Goldstein v. Serio, 566 So.2d 1338, 1339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)).

2007Id.; see also Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla.1992); Ferraro v. Marr, 490 So.2d 188, 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Lowry v. Logan, 650 So.2d 653, 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

2000In Lowry v. Logan, 650 So.2d 653, 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the First District discussed the doctrine and said: Consistent with the rule of law that to constitute an election of remedies the workers' compensation remedy must be pursued to a determination or conclusion on the merits, Florida courts also hold that mere acceptance by a claimant of some compensation benefits is not enough to constitute an election.

2009Id.; see also Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla.1992); Ferraro v .

2007Id.; see also Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla.1992); Ferraro v. Marr, 490 So.2d 188, 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Lowry v. Logan, 650 So.2d 653, 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

2009Recognizing that “the point upon which a worker’s action with regard to a compensation claim constitutes an election of the workers’ compensation remedy to the exclusion of a civil action is not entirely clear,” Jones, 932 So.2d at 1105 , Florida courts have fashioned an election of remedies analysis that is based not on the claimant’s employment status but on evidence of the claimant’s conscious intent “ ‘to elect the compensation remedy and to waive his [or her] other rights,’ ” id. at 1106 (quoting Wheeled Coach Indus., Inc. v. Annulis, 852 So.2d 430, 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)).

2007Recognizing that "the point upon which a worker's action with regard to a compensation claim constitutes an election of the workers' compensation remedy to the exclusion of a civil action is not entirely clear," Jones, 932 So.2d at 1105 , Florida courts have fashioned an election of remedies analysis that is based not on the claimant's employment status but on evidence of the claimant's conscious intent "`to elect the compensation remedy and to waive his [or her] other rights,'" id. at 1106 (quoting Wheeled Coach Indus., Inc. v. Annulis, 852 So.2d 430, 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)).

2012Id.

1972Landis, supra. The election of remedies doctrine in Florida has been explained as follows: “ ‘Where the remedies afforded are inconsistent it is the election of one of such remedies which operates as a bar; but where the remedies afforded are consistent it is the satisfaction of the claim which operates as a bar.’ ” Klondike, Inc. v. Blair, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 41, 42 .

2023Nat’l Bank v. Tworoger, 554 So. 2d 565, 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (holding that appellees were not precluded from seeking attorney’s fees on alternate basis after their award of attorney’s fees was reversed in the prior appeal, because “[u]nder such circumstances there never could have been a double recovery, preclusion of which is the purpose of the election of remedies doctrine”).

2012Indeed, nowhere in the complaint is it asserted or suggested that the plaintiff pursued a workers’ compensation remedy to a determination on the merits or to final settlement so as to give rise to an election of remedies defense.”); see also Peak, 57 So.3d at 999 (reversing dismissal based on affirmative defense of sovereign immunity because the complaint did not conclusively establish its applicability).

2009The purpose of the election of remedies doctrine “is to ‘prevent double recoveries for a single wrong.’ ” Ehrman v. Mann, 979 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted).

2009“Under Florida law, however, the election of remedies doctrine applies only where the remedies in question are coexistent and inconsistent.” Id. (citations omitted).

2007Id.; see also Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850, 853 (Fla.1992); Ferraro v. Marr, 490 So.2d 188, 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Lowry v. Logan, 650 So.2d 653, 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

2002See Chorak v. Naughton, 409 So.2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that worker who requests and receives workers' compensation benefits elects this exclusive remedy).

1997See Armour & Co. v. Lambdin, 154 Fla. 86 , 16 So.2d 805 (1944) (observing election of remedies is the adoption of one or more coexisting remedies with the effect precluding resort to the other.) Consequently, I would affirm the denial of Silver Express’s motion for temporary injunction. .

1997See Armour & Co. v. Lambdin, 154 Fla. 86 , 16 So.2d 805 (1944) (observing election of remedies is the adoption of one or more coexisting remedies with the effect precluding resort to the other.) Consequently, I would affirm the denial of Silver Express’s motion for temporary injunction. .

1996See also Grapes v. Mitchell, 159 So.2d 465 (Fla.1963); F.J.

1996In so doing, this court agreed with Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 269 So.2d 714, 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 285 So.2d 18 (Fla.1973), that `...

1987Williams, 124 Fla. at 426 , 168 So. at 646 ; McCormick v. Bodeker, 119 Fla. 20, 23 , 160 So. 483, 484 (1935); American Process Co. v. Florida *1333 White Pressed Brick Co., 56 Fla. 116, 122 , 47 So. 942 , 944 (1908); Klondike, Inc., 211 So.2d at 42-43 ; Cooley v. Rahilly, 200 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 207 So.2d 690 (Fla. 1967).

1987Williams, 124 Fla. at 426 , 168 So. at 646 ; McCormick v. Bodeker, 119 Fla. 20, 23 , 160 So. 483, 484 (1935); American Process Co. v. Florida *1333 White Pressed Brick Co., 56 Fla. 116, 122 , 47 So. 942 , 944 (1908); Klondike, Inc., 211 So.2d at 42-43 ; Cooley v. Rahilly, 200 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 207 So.2d 690 (Fla. 1967).

1987Williams, 124 Fla. at 426 , 168 So. at 646 ; McCormick v. Bodeker, 119 Fla. 20, 23 , 160 So. 483, 484 (1935); American Process Co. v. Florida *1333 White Pressed Brick Co., 56 Fla. 116, 122 , 47 So. 942 , 944 (1908); Klondike, Inc., 211 So.2d at 42-43 ; Cooley v. Rahilly, 200 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 207 So.2d 690 (Fla. 1967).

1983Encore, Inc. v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 326 So.2d 161, 163 (Fla. 1976).

1976See Swindel, supra .