Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 440.11 (2025)
Exclusiveness of liability.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
440.11 Exclusiveness of liability.—
(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death, except as follows:
(a) If an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee, or the legal representative thereof in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this chapter or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of such injury or death. In such action the defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by negligence of a fellow employee, that the employee assumed the risk of the employment, or that the injury was due to the comparative negligence of the employee.
(b) When an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee. For purposes of this paragraph, an employer’s actions shall be deemed to constitute an intentional tort and not an accident only when the employee proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that:
1. The employer deliberately intended to injure the employee; or
2. The employer engaged in conduct that the employer knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work.
The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter. Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer’s business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any sole proprietor, partner, corporate officer or director, supervisor, or other person who in the course and scope of his or her duties acts in a managerial or policymaking capacity and the conduct which caused the alleged injury arose within the course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties and was not a violation of a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days’ imprisonment as set forth in s. 775.082. The immunity from liability provided in this subsection extends to county governments with respect to employees of county constitutional officers whose offices are funded by the board of county commissioners.
(2) The immunity from liability described in subsection (1) shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which uses the services of the employees of a help supply services company, as set forth in North American Industrial Classification System Codes 561320 and 561330, when such employees, whether management or staff, are acting in furtherance of the employer’s business. An employee so engaged by the employer shall be considered a borrowed employee of the employer and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer. The employer shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such borrowed employees as required in s. 440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help supply services company.
(3) An employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, service agent, or safety consultant shall not be liable as a third-party tortfeasor to employees of the employer or employees of its subcontractors for assisting the employer and its subcontractors, if any, in carrying out the employer’s rights and responsibilities under this chapter by furnishing any safety inspection, safety consultative service, or other safety service incidental to the workers’ compensation or employers’ liability coverage or to the workers’ compensation or employer’s liability servicing contract. Without limitation, a safety consultant may include an owner, as defined in chapter 713, or an owner’s related, affiliated, or subsidiary companies and the employees of each. The exclusion from liability under this subsection shall not apply in any case in which injury or death is proximately caused by the willful and unprovoked physical aggression, or by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, by employees, officers, or directors of the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, service agent, or safety consultant.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 624.155, the liability of a carrier to an employee or to anyone entitled to bring suit in the name of the employee shall be as provided in this chapter, which shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability.
History.—s. 11, ch. 17481, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 5966(11); s. 1, ch. 70-25; s. 1, ch. 71-190; s. 4, ch. 75-209; ss. 2, 23, ch. 78-300; ss. 6, 124, ch. 79-40; s. 21, ch. 79-312; s. 3, ch. 83-305; s. 1, ch. 88-284; ss. 8, 43, ch. 89-289; ss. 16, 56, ch. 90-201; ss. 14, 52, ch. 91-1; s. 16, ch. 93-415; s. 108, ch. 97-103; s. 14, ch. 2003-412; s. 5, ch. 2013-141.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 548
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005).
Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005). “In Aguilera, the Third District expressly held that "the allegations in the present case are insufficient to come within any exception to the statutory immunity provided by section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2000)." Id.”
Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001). “DOT moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity because the "unrelated works" exception under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997), [1] did not apply.”
Streeter v. Sullivan, 509 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1987). “[1] The liability or immunity of all defendants rests upon our interpretation of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981).”
Weber v. Dobbins, 616 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1993). “Weber moved for summary judgment based on the grounds of the immunity provisions in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1983), and that his actions did not constitute gross negligence.”
Holmes Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Duffell, 651 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1995). “The exception set out in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), permits an employee to sue his negligent fellow employee when the two employees are engaged in unrelated work.”
Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1993). “2d DCA 1992), in which the Second District Court of Appeal found the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which is a part of the Workers' Compensation Law, to be unconstitutional.”
Vause v. Bay Med. Ctr., 687 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). “The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including sovereign immunity and the employer's tort immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes, as well as the plaintiff's election of a workers' compensation remedy.”
Taylor v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 888 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2004). “NOTES [1] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, entitled "Exclusiveness of liability," provides in pertinent part: The liability of an employer prescribed in s.”
Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1992). “NOTES [1] Section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1983), provides in pertinent part: 440.”
Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR INC., 889 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2004). “Section 440.11, the exclusive-remedy provision, provides that the liability of the employer for the benefits prescribed under the Workers' Compensation Law "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability .”
Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Constr., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009). “See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). In his appeal to the Fourth District, Saleeby argued, as he did in the trial court, that sections 768.”
Aravena v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 928 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2006). “§ 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2001). The county filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied.”
— 440.11(1) — 228 cases
Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001). “DOT moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity because the "unrelated works" exception under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1997), [1] did not apply.”
Streeter v. Sullivan, 509 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1987). “[1] The liability or immunity of all defendants rests upon our interpretation of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1981).”
Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1993). “2d DCA 1992), in which the Second District Court of Appeal found the 1988 amendment to section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which is a part of the Workers' Compensation Law, to be unconstitutional.”
Holmes Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Duffell, 651 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1995). “The exception set out in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), permits an employee to sue his negligent fellow employee when the two employees are engaged in unrelated work.”
Vause v. Bay Med. Ctr., 687 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). “The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including sovereign immunity and the employer's tort immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes, as well as the plaintiff's election of a workers' compensation remedy.”
— 440.11(1)(4) — 1 case
Deen v. Quantum Resources, Inc., 750 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1999).
— 440.11(1)(a) — 9 cases
Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Williams, 998 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Sanders v. City of Orlando, 997 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2008).
Ocean Reef Club, Inc. v. Wilczewski, 99 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
Perez v. La Dove, Inc., 964 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
Crum Servs. v. Lopez, 975 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
— 440.11(1)(b) — 16 cases
Nora LaFreniere, Vice President & Gen. Couns. of Otis Elevator Co. v. Catherine Craig-Myers, individually & as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Robert Myers, 264 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).
Bakerman v. the Bombay Co., Inc., 961 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2007).
Pendergrass v. RD Michaels, Inc., 936 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
R.L. Haines Constr., LLC v. Santamaria, 161 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
Ramsey v. Dewitt Excavating, 248 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
— 440.11(1)(b)(2) — 7 cases
Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR INC., 889 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2004). “Section 440.11, the exclusive-remedy provision, provides that the liability of the employer for the benefits prescribed under the Workers' Compensation Law "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability .”
Moradiellos v. Gerelco Traffic Controls, Inc., 176 So. 3d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
Vallejos v. Lan Cargo S.A., 116 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 1 So. 3d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
Casas v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 927 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
— 440.11(1995) — 1 case
Byerley v. Citrus Pub., Inc., 725 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
— 440.11(2) — 37 cases
St. Lucie Falls Prop. Owners v. Morelli, 956 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Baker v. Airguide Mfg., LLC, 151 So. 3d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Hazealeferiou v. Labor Ready, 947 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Smith v. Allendale Mut. Ins., 303 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. 1981).
Derogatis v. Fawcett Mem'l Hosp., 892 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
— 440.11(3) — 6 cases
Bowen v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 512 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Shaw v. Cambridge Integrated Servs. Grp., Inc., 888 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Kifer v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 777 F.2d 1325 (8th Cir. 1985).
US Holdings, Inc. v. Belance, 922 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Chiang v. Wildcat Groves, Inc., 703 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
— 440.11(4) — 5 cases
Aguilera v. Inservices, Inc., 905 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2005). “In Aguilera, the Third District expressly held that "the allegations in the present case are insufficient to come within any exception to the statutory immunity provided by section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2000)." Id.”
Inservices, Inc. v. Aguilera, 837 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Bend v. Shamrock Servs., 59 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Protegrity Servs., Inc. v. Brehm, 901 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Se. Administrators, Inc. v. Moriarty, 571 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
— 440.11(b) — 2 cases
Gerber v. Vincent's Men's Hairstyling, Inc., 57 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Maxum Indem. Co. v. 3rd Generation Plumbing, Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2018).
— 440.11(b)(1) — 1 case
Maxum Indem. Co. v. 3rd Generation Plumbing, Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2018).
— 440.11(b)(2) — 1 case
Maxum Indem. Co. v. 3rd Generation Plumbing, Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2018).
— 440.11(c) — 1 case
Jacobsen v. Stores, 882 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
— 440.11(l)(a) — 4 cases
Payne v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
Mena v. J.I.L. Constr. Grp. Corp., 79 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Schroeder v. Peoplease Corp., 18 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
Ocean Reef Club, Inc. v. Wilczewski, 99 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).
— 440.11(l)(b) — 16 cases
In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01, 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010).
R.L. Haines Constr., LLC v. Santamaria, 161 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
Figueroa v. Delant Constr. Co., 118 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Zeiger Crane Rentals, Inc. v. Double a Indus., Inc., 16 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Petro Stopping Centers, L.P. v. Gall, 23 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
— 440.11(l)(b)(2) — 3 cases
List Indus., Inc. v. Dalien, 107 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
Vallejos v. Lan Cargo S.A., 116 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
Guevara v. Doormark, Inc., 946 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.