Cases from cite.case.law:

VAZQUEZ, v. ROMERO, L R Co, 179 So. 3d 402 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Petitioner’s voluntary dismissal was without prejudice and a PFB could be refiled, or .pursuant- to section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(4) does not confer jurisdiction on the JCC, because that statute applies only to disputes . . . Co., 28 So.3d 202, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[A] carrier can obtain contribution pursuant to section 440.42 . . . Conibear Equip., Inc., 854 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“[Section 440.42(8) [now renumbered as . . .

NEWICK, v. WEBSTER TRAINING CENTER, 78 So. 3d 108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . We agreed and determined that section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes, which “governs the division of liability . . . non-compensability in a case as that presented in Staffmark, an E/C may instead find a remedy in section 440.42 . . . interpretation of Staffmark would render meaningless our determination that an E/C may find a remedy in section 440.42 . . . Under Claimant’s interpretation, the E/C in this case would have no remedy pursuant to section 440.42 . . . By conflating section 440.15(5)(b) with section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes, our court has confused the . . .

PETTY, v. FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,, 80 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 2012)

. . . Specifically, section 440.42(1), Florida Statutes (2008), provides that ”[e]very policy or contract of . . .

J. BEND, Jr. v. SHAMROCK SERVICES, 59 So. 3d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . determine if a workers’ compensation policy is in effect, has been properly cancelled pursuant to section 440.42 . . . See § 440.42(3), Fla. . . . is where there is duplicative or dual coverage, and both policies carry the same “effective date.” § 440.42 . . . See §§ 440.381(6)(a), 440.42(3), Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

BRAUN, v. BREVARD COUNTY,, 44 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Purportedly relying on section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes (2005), and citing Pearson v. . . . Section 440.42 and Pearson have no application here. . . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1991), is substantially identical to Section 440.42(4), Florida . . .

STAFFMARK v. MERRELL,, 43 So. 3d 792 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . than claiming non-compensability in cases such as this, an E/C may instead find a remedy in section 440.42 . . .

MEDPARTNERS DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC MEDICAL GROUP, P. A. v. ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY,, 23 So. 3d 202 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Analysis We begin our analysis by recognizing that section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes (2001), allows . . . See § 440.42(4), Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . We have held, however, a carrier can obtain contribution pursuant to section 440.42(4) only if the carrier . . .

PEARSON, v. PARADISE FORD CNA, 951 So. 2d 12 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes (2003), not section 440.09(l)(b), controls the case under review. . . . Coach USA, 791 So.2d 1138, 1142-43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), that section 440.42(3) [now section 440.42(4) . . . “The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42(3) is whether the second compensable . . . Section 440.42(3) thereafter allows the deputy [JCC] to divide liability according to each carrier’s . . . Section 440.42(4) provides: When there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers is liable . . .

ORDONES, v. AMERICAN INTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 950 So. 2d 427 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . the subject of this appeal, appellee asserted that it properly cancelled the contract under sections 440.42 . . .

CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, v. VILLASENOR, 894 So. 2d 991 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Section 440.42, Florida Statutes, codifies a right of contribution between carriers “when one of the . . . only with respect to payments made after it had knowledge or notice of its potential liability.” § 440.42 . . .

JEFFREY S STEEL AIG v. CONIBEAR EQUIPMENT, INC., 854 So. 2d 268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Finally, section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, controls the division of liability between carriers for . . . “The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42(3) is whether the second compensable . . . Where liability is divided among two or more carriers pursuant to section 440.42(3), attorney’s fees . . . Therefore, section 440.42(3) can be applied only when each of the contending employer/carriers is hable . . . Accordingly, pursuant to the plain language of section 440.42(3), Conibear is only entitled to contribution . . .

HANDY- MAN KNEP, INC. v. WEINSTEIN RSKCO,, 802 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

. . . The next step is determining liability between multiple employers/carriers under section 440.42(3).” . . .

B L SERVICES, INC. d b a v. COACH USA f k a, 791 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . (3), Florida Statutes (1993), and misplaces reliance on cases decided under section 440.42(3) concerning . . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1995), provides: When there is any controversy as to which of two . . . contributing cause” provisions took effect, the majority opinion misapprehends the reach of section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3) is a purely procedural provision. . . . Section 440.42(3) remains a necessary part of the Workers’ Compensation Law, despite the changes that . . . However, the legislature did not include section 440.42 in its amendments. . . . As the legislature did not substantially change section 440.42 in its 1994 amendments, we assume that . . . The next step is determining liability between multiple employers/carriers under section 440.42(3). . . . “The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42(3) is whether the second compensa-ble . . . Section 440.42(3) thereafter allows the deputy [JCC] to divide liability according to each carrier’s . . .

ITT HARTFORD, a v. A. CLEARY,, 737 So. 2d 567 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . the JCC has jurisdiction to decide coverage disputes between a carrier and an employer under section 440.42 . . .

SPECIAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND, v. MEYER USA,, 721 So. 2d 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . The judge of compensation claims ruled that the second carrier was entitled under section 440.42(3), . . .

ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. f k a v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CHUBB GROUP,, 707 So. 2d 880 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . present proceedings by filing a motion for contribution, reimbursement, and/or exoneration under section 440.42 . . . repetitive trauma or exposure suffered in the course and scope of employment results in injury, section 440.42 . . . Mathis, 644 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(holding that subsection 440.42(3) vests the judge of compensation . . .

MURPHY, v. NORTHEAST DRYWALL, 692 So. 2d 918 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . But if the question may later arise, the parties should be aware of the provisions of section 440.42( . . .

EASTERN AIRLINES GAB v. PLANET- RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 695 So. 2d 732 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . The JCC noted the argument by North River that because Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes — the statute . . . Thus, under existing law predating the enactment of section 440.42(3), Planet Reliance would have been . . . Turning again to the language of section 440.42(3), we observe that the statute speaks of the liabilities . . .

ROZ FISCHER S BEAUTY UNLIMITED v. MATHIS, s, 644 So. 2d 127 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . hearing was held on the claims for benefits and Travelers’ claim for reimbursement pursuant to section 440.42 . . . Subsection 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1987), establishes the procedure for obtaining reimbursement . . . 440.15(5) for apportionment of permanent benefits in disputes between claimants and carriers, subsection 440.42 . . . In Paige, this court explained: nowhere in section 440.42(3) is it mandated that the judge is required . . .

CUSHMAN FRUIT AND CLAIMS, FFV v. CUSHMAN FRUIT FCF, 644 So. 2d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . from an order of a judge of compensation claims granting a claim for reimbursement pursuant to section 440.42 . . . claimant, Inelda Smith’s claim, and filed a claim for reimbursement pursuant to Florida Statute Section 440.42 . . . Florida Statute 440.42(2), states: When duplicate or dual coverage exists by reason of two different . . . FCF until 23 days after the date of accident, no duplicate or dual coverage existed pursuant to F.S. 440.42 . . .

LUTTRELL, v. ROGER HOLLER CHEVROLET,, 625 So. 2d 921 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . on the risk at the time of two separate industrial accidents, pursuant to the provisions of Section 440.42 . . .

CUSTOM ARCHITECTURAL METALS, v. BRADSHAW,, 623 So. 2d 804 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Wilson, 509 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes. . . . Therefore, we conclude that the JCC erred in failing to apportion liability pursuant to Section 440.42 . . .

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI v. DANSKY Co., 622 So. 2d 613 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . an action in which Home Insurance is seeking reimbursement from the University pursuant to section 440.42 . . .

CURTIS- HALE, INC. v. GELTZ W., 610 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . The issue raised in Peninsular was whether, pursuant to section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes (1969) (which . . . In contrast, it seems to me that the relevant language of section 440.42(2) may not be read as imposing . . . Section 440.42(2) reads, in relevant part, that “[n]o contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier . . . I am unable to find in the language used by the legislature in section 440.42(2) anything to support . . . Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: “No contract or policy of insurance issued by a . . . due to the failure of ESIF to give the 30 days’ notice of cancellation required pursuant to section 440.42 . . . or more from the date the notice is mailed, the notice is void” for failure to comply with section 440.42 . . . We find Aetna’s position is convincing and comports with the legislative intent of sections 440.42(2) . . . The deputy commissioner recognized such an immediate cancellation did not comply with section 440.42( . . .

GRAND BAY HOTEL a v. GUERRA, 605 So. 2d 134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Claimant as their defense, and in addition, sought a claim against the Employer/F.I.G.A. pursuant to F.S. 440.42 . . . into between Home Insurance Company and the claimant and said reimbursement will be pursuant to F.S. 440.42 . . . settlement document specifically mentions a pending reimbursement claim against FIGA pursuant to section 440.42 . . . Home only met its own obligations and was not entitled to reimbursement from FIGA pursuant to section 440.42 . . .

MARRIOTT HOTEL, a k a v. RESTREPO Co. Co-, 603 So. 2d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Section 440.42(3) confers jurisdiction upon the JCC to adjudicate a controversy as to which of two carriers . . .

CNA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY,, 596 So. 2d 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Wilson, 509 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes. . . .

COPELAND STEEL ERECTORS Co. v. McCOLLOM Co., 587 So. 2d 658 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . Section 440.42(3) Florida Statutes authorizes the Judge of Compensation Claims to allocate responsibility . . .

LAWRENCE, v. O. B. CANNON SONS, INC., 579 So. 2d 812 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . with different carriers at risk, a division of liability between the carriers, pursuant to Section 440.42 . . . It should be noted that section 440.42(3) authorizes a judge to allocate responsibility and order reimbursement . . .

HOY d b a v. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, J. K., 578 So. 2d 2 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

. . . to have effectively canceled the policy, it was necessary for it to notify Hoy pursuant to section 440.42 . . .

MEEK, v. LAYNE- WESTERN CO., 566 So. 2d 31 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . See § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. . . .

EMPLOYERS SELF INSURERS FUND AND CLAIMS CENTER, v. TORRES,, 565 So. 2d 395 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . that ESIF did not give 30 days’ notice of cancellation of insurance coverage required pursuant to § 440.42 . . . Sec. 440.42(2), Fla.Stat. (1987), states, in pertinent part: No contract or policy of insurance issued . . . 1987), in pertinent part, states: Notice of cancellation or expiration of a policy as set out in s. 440.42 . . . The deputy determined that although the purported “immediate” cancellation did not comply with § 440.42 . . . King, supra, and reversed, stating that the failure to comply with 440.42(2), Fla.Stat., rendered the . . .

CRUISE QUALITY PAINTING v. PAIGE,, 564 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . to qualify terminology in earlier opinions precluding any allocation between carriers under section 440.42 . . . reciting Rowe’s overbroad statement that “[disputes between carriers ... are governed rather by Section 440.42 . . . claims may be governed by that section and numerous others in addition to (not rather than) section 440.42 . . . Relevant to the resolution of this issue is Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides . . . However, because of the unequivocal language of Section 440.42(3), we conclude that the result reached . . . Catinella, 129 So.2d 133 (Fla.1961), the supreme court interpreted the 1959 version of section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3) then permits the carrier paying such benefits (either voluntarily or in compliance . . . School Board of Nassau County and the other cases mentioned above, nowhere in section 440.42(3) is it . . .

FORKLIFTS OF CENTRAL FLORIDA Co. v. BERINGER, GAB, 560 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . condition, represents CSE to support the JCC’s final determination of liability, as required by section 440.42 . . . When dividing responsibility under Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1983), which is the issue at . . . Section 440.42(3), on the other hand, controls the division of liability between carriers for benefits . . .

SAUER INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING INC. CNA Co. v. E. DITCH, III, v. FLORIDA BECHTEL, 547 So. 2d 276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, authorizes the deputy to allocate responsibility and order reimbursement . . .

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, v. NETTLES, D. P. a k a, 528 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, (1983), disallows the expiration or cancellation of a workers’ compensation . . .

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH v. GARABEDIAN,, 511 So. 2d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . on the risk at the time of the second accident (carrier 2) sought reimbursement, pursuant to section 440.42 . . .

ATKINS CONSTRUCTION CO. Co. v. WILSON, v. HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, 509 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . . § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. (1985); Flagship National Bank of Broward County v. . . .

ARDMORE FARMS v. SMITH, Co., 504 So. 2d 483 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Ardmore’s notice of controversy between carriers and request for reimbursement pursuant to section 440.42 . . .

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, v. PISSERI, Jr., 504 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Further, pursuant to Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, Hartford filed a claim for reimbursement against . . . whether Hartford or Continental was to be responsible for payment of Pis-seri’s claim pursuant to Section 440.42 . . .

YOUNG v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., 496 So. 2d 232 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, provides that: No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier . . . coverage immediately, the deputy recognized that such immediate cancellation would not comply with section 440.42 . . . In accordance with Peninsular Fire, Travelers’ failure to comply with section 440.42(2) in the present . . .

McRAE FIRE PROTECTION CNA v. McRAE,, 493 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . therefore, benefits should have been awarded under the policy with the later effective date, citing section 440.42 . . .

ACME OIL COMPANY v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,, 496 So. 2d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . denying reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits from State Farm Insurance Company under Section 440.42 . . . notice or knowledge of its potential liability for compensation and medical benefits pursuant to Section 440.42 . . . The action for reimbursement is governed by Section 440.42, Florida Statutes (1981), which states: If . . . carrier had the effect of reversing the deputy’s finding that reimbursement was not proper under Section 440.42 . . . accident and its potential liability requires State Farm to reimburse Hill, Richards under Section 440.42 . . .

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, v. GREATER MIAMI HEBREW ACADEMY, 484 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . appeals an order of the deputy commissioner dismissing its claim for reimbursement pursuant to Section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3) provides that “[w]hen there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers . . . correct in his determination that he had no jurisdiction to consider Blue Cross’ claim under section 440.42 . . .

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION, v. FIBERCON INDUSTRIES, INC., 491 So. 2d 566 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . 417 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3) thereafter allows the deputy to divide liability according to each carrier’s responsibilities . . .

FLAGSHIP NATIONAL BANK OF BROWARD COUNTY Co. v. HINKLE, Co., 479 So. 2d 828 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Numerous decisions of this court construing sections 440.02(18) and 440.42(3) of the workers’ compensation . . . and that in situations involving a dispute between two carriers the deputy was empowered by section 440.42 . . . the authority of a deputy commissioner to apportion medical benefits between carriers under section 440.42 . . .

H. DANIEL, v. HOLMES LUMBER COMPANY,, 471 So. 2d 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1977), provides in part: "[A]nd if one of the carriers voluntarily . . .

HAYWARD TRUCKING, INC. v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A., 466 So. 2d 437 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1981), authorizes the deputy to adjudicate inter-carrier liability . . .

ACME OIL v. C. VASATKA, 465 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1982). . . .

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS, INC. v. P. WORTHEN,, 463 So. 2d 502 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . risk at the time of the employee’s second accident for reimbursement, under the provisions of Section 440.42 . . . 417 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982): “The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42 . . . an insurer’s claim for reimbursement against another insurer, pursuant to the provisions of section 440.42 . . . The majority, however, apparently overlooks the continuing effect of Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes . . . Under Section 440.42(3), the deputy commissioner is empowered to apportion the medical benefits awarded . . . While 440.42(3) grants the deputy commissioner (deputy) jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies between . . .

MIAMI ELEVATOR CO. FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION GAB v. JONES, CNA, 460 So. 2d 503 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . overpayment made by GAB pursuant to an order of the deputy would be subject to the reimbursement terms of § 440.42 . . .

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, v. SUNRISE CATERING, 447 So. 2d 431 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

. . . compliance with the policy provision requiring notice to the insured and Florida Statutes 440.185(7) and 440.42 . . . Florida Statutes 440.42(2) provides for policy cancellation with notice sent to the division and the . . . 440.185(7) provides that “[n]otice of cancellation or expiration of a policy as set out in section 440.42 . . .

U. S. ELECTRIC COMPANY v. SISK ELECTRIC SERVICE, INC. St., 417 So. 2d 738 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Paul voluntarily compensated claimant, pursuant to Section 440.42, Florida Statutes, at the rate of $190.00 . . . Paul under the provisions of Section 440.42(3). . . . The determinative factor in placing liability under Section 440.42(3) is whether the second compensable . . . Section 440.42(3) thereafter allows the deputy to divide liability according to each carrier’s responsibility . . .

FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY GUARANTY COMPANY, W. FLORIDA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY COMPANY, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY GUARANTY COMPANY,, 404 So. 2d 837 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Farm Bureau’s letter of assumption, which purported to be effective July 1, 1978, pursuant to Section 440.42 . . . Florida Farm Bureau could not effectively terminate coverage in less than thirty days, under Section 440.42 . . . In our opinion, the statutory presumption of Section 440.42(2) could be applied to the competing binders . . . Section 440.42(2) provides, in pertinent part: However, when duplicate or dual coverage exists by reason . . . Harmel Constructors, Inc., 3 FCR 298 (1958), cited by appellees, was decided under a version of § 440.42 . . .

NEFF, v. F. BRITTO, R. L., 404 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . responsibility for payment of claimant’s medical treatment of his psychiatric condition and Section 440.42 . . . Under Section 440.42(3), the deputy commissioner is empowered to apportion the medical benefits awarded . . .

U. S. HOME CORPORATION v. E. PARKER, 404 So. 2d 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . We recognize that § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. (1977), permits the Deputy to determine the responsibility of . . . Therefore, § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. (1977) is inapplicable, and accordingly, the Deputy had no power to . . .

AUTO- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, 402 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Applying Section 440.42(3) F.S. (1978) the commissioner placed the risk on American States until actual . . .

HALL, v. T. C. SAFFOLD PAVING SERVICE, 397 So. 2d 725 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . Sections 440.42(2) and 440.185(7) Florida Statutes (1979) requiring notice to the Worker’s Compensation . . . His testimony indicates that American Casualty complied with Section 440.42(2) and 440.185(7) but there . . .

BROWARD INDUSTRIAL PLATING, INC. v. WEIBY, 394 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . See § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat. See also Seasons v. O’Day, 379 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. v. NABINGER, B. I. R., 394 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

. . . because Allstate failed to cancel the Mous-settes’ workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with § 440.42 . . .

SEASONS FROM SARASOTA v. O DAY,, 379 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)

. . . Disputes between carriers are governed by § 440.42(3), Fla.Stat., which empowers the judge to divide . . .

ROWE MITCHELL Co. v. L. RODGERS,, 378 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . more employers”, or between self-insured employers on the same subject, are governed rather by Section 440.42 . . .

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, v. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANIES,, 379 So. 2d 970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

. . . Section 440.42(2), Fla.Stat. . . . The deputy commissioner’s application of § 440.42(2), Fla.Stat., was therefore inappropriate. . . .

BELFORD TRUCKING COMPANY, v. PINSON,, 360 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

. . . contractor’s rights are to seek reimbursement against the subcontractor, but not to refuse payment [§ 440.42 . . .

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. MANPOWER, INC. a a, 348 So. 2d 10 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Manpower and Transamerica then commenced an action against Shell under Section 440.42, Florida Statutes . . . of Industrial Claims was concerned with determining who was the injured man’s employer under Section 440.42 . . . Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1975), provides: When there is any controversy as to which of two . . .

INTERNATIONAL PILING, INC. a v. AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 345 So. 2d 761 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

. . . Appellant asserts that Florida Statute § 440.42(3) (1967) defines and limits the judicial authority of . . . contends that the Industrial Claims Court does not have jurisdiction over the situation sub judice under § 440.42 . . . Appellant reasons that if 440.42(3) does not apply to the instant case, then 440.41 cannot be employed . . . The same Court also said the following: Fla.Stat. § 440.42(3) (1967) F.S.A. allows the Industrial Commission . . .

PENINSULAR FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. KING,, 282 So. 2d 672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973)

. . . Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, F.S. . . .

FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, v. RICH, d b a, 220 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1969)

. . . . § 440.42(3) (1967), F.S.A., allows the Industrial Commission to settle a dispute between two or more . . .

W. JOHNSTON v. STATE A. CARTER,, 213 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

. . . Rather, it concerned the interpretation of Section 440.42(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and its application . . .

IOWA NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. A. WEBB, Co., 174 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1965)

. . . See Section 440.42(3) and City of Lakeland v. Catinella, Fla. 1961, 129 So.2d 133. . . . Under Section 440.42(3), F.S.A. either carrier can furnish such benefits and be reimbursed for any sums . . .

OVERHOLSER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. PORTER, VENNING WARD MASONRY v. PORTER,, 173 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1964)

. . . In response to the claim Venning and Ward, pursuant to Section 440.42, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., asserted . . .

W. GRAPER v. UNITED STATES, 206 F. Supp. 173 (E.D. Wis. 1962)

. . . Assessed $1898.79 Penalty Payments: * 12/31/52 Interest $ 92.99 1/2/53 Interest 689.88 6/19/53 Tax 440.42 . . .

CITY OF LAKELAND, v. CATINELLA,, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1961)

. . . . § 440.42, F.S.A., prior to amendment in 1957, but the deputy was of the opinion the controlling statute . . . to this cause was that effective on the date of the second accident, March 11, 1957, and since Sec. 440.42 . . . Sec. 440.42(3) which became effective on July 1, 1959 (this 1959 amendment merely added to the original . . . Sec. 440.42(3), as amended in 1959, was effective on the date the controversy arose. . . . The deputy reasoned that whether jurisdiction was granted under Sec. 440.-20(8) or Sec. 440.42(3), the . . .

SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW HAVEN, v. J. C. KING, S. D. d b a, 124 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1960)

. . . covering the crucial period which had not been can-celled in accordance with the requirements of § 440.42 . . .

HOMEWOOD THEATRE, v. LOEW S,, 110 F. Supp. 398 (D. Minn. 1952)

. . . must take the gross receipts of Paradise from 1935 to September 16, 1948, inclusive, which total $744,-440.42 . . .