Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 440.42 (2025)
Insurance policies; 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
440.42 Insurance policies; liability.—
(1) Every policy or contract of insurance issued under authority of this chapter shall contain:
(a) A provision to carry out the provisions of s. 440.41; and
(b) A provision that insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer and discharge therein shall not relieve the carrier from payment of compensation for disability or death sustained by an employee during the life of such policy or contract.
(2) A workers’ compensation insurance policy may require the employer to release certain employment and wage information maintained by the state pursuant to federal and state reemployment assistance laws except to the extent prohibited or limited under federal law. By entering into a workers’ compensation insurance policy with such a provision, the employer consents to the release of the information. The insurance carrier requiring such consent shall safeguard the information and maintain its confidentiality. The carrier shall limit use of the information to verifying compliance with the terms of the workers’ compensation insurance policy. The department may charge a fee to cover the cost of disclosing the information.
(3) No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier under this chapter shall expire or be canceled until at least 30 days have elapsed after a notice of cancellation has been sent to the department and to the employer in accordance with the provisions of s. 440.185(6). For cancellation due to nonpayment of premium, the insurer shall mail notification to the employer at least 10 days prior to the effective date of the cancellation. However, when duplicate or dual coverage exists by reason of two different carriers having issued policies of insurance to the same employer securing the same liability, it shall be presumed that only that policy with the later effective date shall be in force and that the earlier policy terminated upon the effective date of the latter. In the event that both policies carry the same effective date, one of the policies may be canceled instanter upon filing a notice of cancellation with the department and serving a copy thereof upon the employer in such manner as the department prescribes by rule. The department may by rule prescribe the content of the notice of retroactive cancellation and specify the time, place, and manner in which the notice of cancellation is to be served.
(4) When there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers is liable for the discharge of the obligations and duties of one or more employers with respect to a claim for compensation, remedial treatment, or other benefits under this chapter, the judge of compensation claims shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate such controversy; and if one of the carriers voluntarily or in compliance with a compensation order makes payments in discharge of such liability and it is finally determined that another carrier is liable for all or any part of such obligations and duties with respect to such claim, the carrier which has made payments either voluntarily or in compliance with a compensation order shall be entitled to reimbursement from the carrier finally determined liable, and the judge of compensation claims shall have jurisdiction to order such reimbursement; however, if the carrier finally determined liable can demonstrate that it has been prejudiced by lack of knowledge or notice of its potential liability, such reimbursement shall be only with respect to payments made after it had knowledge or notice of its potential liability.
History.—s. 42, ch. 17481, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 5966(41); s. 11, ch. 29778, 1955; s. 3, ch. 57-225; s. 3, ch. 59-100; s. 1, ch. 65-204; ss. 17, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 1, ch. 73-185; s. 20, ch. 75-209; s. 23, ch. 78-300; ss. 32, 124, ch. 79-40; s. 21, ch. 79-312; s. 43, ch. 89-289; s. 56, ch. 90-201; s. 52, ch. 91-1; s. 12, ch. 91-46; s. 8, ch. 98-125; s. 10, ch. 98-174; s. 44, ch. 2002-194; s. 29, ch. 2003-412; s. 69, ch. 2012-30; s. 6, ch. 2016-56.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78
cases, 1960–2015 · leading case: B & L Servs., Inc. v. Coach USA, 791 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
B & L Servs., Inc. v. Coach USA, 791 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “It provides in pertinent part: "When there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers is liable for the discharge of the obligations and duties of one or more employers with respect to a claim for compensation, remedial treatment, or other benefits under this…”
Structural Sys., Inc. v. Worthen, 463 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “Hayward involved a claim by the employer/carrier (e/c) on the risk at the time of the employee's second accident for reimbursement, under the provisions of Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, from the first e/c for all benefits paid by it to the employee-claimant.”
Cruise Quality Painting v. Paige, 564 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). “" Relevant to the resolution of this issue is Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides in pertinent part: When there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers is liable for the discharge of the obligations and duties of one or more employers with…”
Pearson v. Paradise Ford, 951 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “42(4), Florida Statutes (2003), [3] not section 440.09(1)(b), controls the case under review.”
Jeffrey's Steel v. Conibear Equip., Inc., 854 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “Finally, section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, controls the division of liability between carriers for benefits due under Chapter 440.”
US Elec. Co. v. Sisk Elec. Serv., Inc., 417 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “Paul voluntarily compensated claimant, pursuant to Section 440.42, Florida Statutes, at the rate of 0.”
Bend v. Shamrock Servs., 59 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). “Generally, a policy for workers’ compensation insurance remains in full force and effect until can-celled on the records of the agency administering workers’ compensation law, in accordance with statutory requirements.”
Grand Bay Hotel v. Guerra, 605 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Further, the settlement document specifically mentions a pending reimbursement claim against FIGA pursuant to section 440.42, Florida Statutes (a provision which only deals with responsibilities between carriers rather than responsibility as to the claimant), and does not…”
Staffmark v. Merrell, 43 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “Thus, pursuant to Pearson and Proctor , rather than claiming non-compensability in cases such as this, an E/C may instead find a remedy in section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes, which governs the division of liability between employers where, as here, two or more workplace…”
Broward Indus. Plating, Inc. v. Weiby, 394 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). “See § 440.42(3), Fla. Stat. See also Seasons v.”
Curtis-Hale, Inc. v. Geltz, 610 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “42(2), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: “No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier under this chapter shall expire or be canceled until at least 30 days have elapsed after a notice of cancellation has been sent to the [Division of Workers’ Compensation] and to the…”
City of Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1961). “In his order the deputy noted that Hartford contended that authority for the procedure followed by Bituminous was F.S. § 440.42, F.S.A., prior to amendment in 1957, but the deputy was of the opinion the controlling statute was Sec.”
— 440.42(1) — 1 case
Petty v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 80 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 2012).
— 440.42(2) — 15 cases
Curtis-Hale, Inc. v. Geltz, 610 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “42(2), Florida Statutes (1987), provides: “No contract or policy of insurance issued by a carrier under this chapter shall expire or be canceled until at least 30 days have elapsed after a notice of cancellation has been sent to the [Division of Workers’ Compensation] and to the…”
Bruck v. Glen Johnson, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Employers Self Insurers Fund & Claims Ctr. v. Torres, 565 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Young v. Travelers Ins. Co., 496 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Argonaut Ins., 379 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
— 440.42(3) — 51 cases
B & L Servs., Inc. v. Coach USA, 791 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). “It provides in pertinent part: "When there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers is liable for the discharge of the obligations and duties of one or more employers with respect to a claim for compensation, remedial treatment, or other benefits under this…”
Structural Sys., Inc. v. Worthen, 463 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). “Hayward involved a claim by the employer/carrier (e/c) on the risk at the time of the employee's second accident for reimbursement, under the provisions of Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, from the first e/c for all benefits paid by it to the employee-claimant.”
Cruise Quality Painting v. Paige, 564 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). “" Relevant to the resolution of this issue is Section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides in pertinent part: When there is any controversy as to which of two or more carriers is liable for the discharge of the obligations and duties of one or more employers with…”
Jeffrey's Steel v. Conibear Equip., Inc., 854 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “Finally, section 440.42(3), Florida Statutes, controls the division of liability between carriers for benefits due under Chapter 440.”
Pearson v. Paradise Ford, 951 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “42(4), Florida Statutes (2003), [3] not section 440.09(1)(b), controls the case under review.”
— 440.42(4) — 7 cases
Staffmark v. Merrell, 43 So. 3d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “Thus, pursuant to Pearson and Proctor , rather than claiming non-compensability in cases such as this, an E/C may instead find a remedy in section 440.42(4), Florida Statutes, which governs the division of liability between employers where, as here, two or more workplace…”
Pearson v. Paradise Ford, 951 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). “42(4), Florida Statutes (2003), [3] not section 440.09(1)(b), controls the case under review.”
Medpartners/Diagnostic Clinic Med. Grp., P.A. v. Zenith Ins. Co., 23 So. 3d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
Braun v. Brevard Cnty., 44 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
Newick v. Webster Training Ctr., 78 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
— 440.42(8) — 1 case
Edwin Vazquez v. Carlos Romero, L & R Structural etc., 179 So. 3d 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
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.