Florida Employers Insurance Service Corp. v. Norco, Inc.

723 So. 2d 875, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15615, 1998 WL 852313
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 11, 1998
DocketNo. 97-4475
StatusPublished

This text of 723 So. 2d 875 (Florida Employers Insurance Service Corp. v. Norco, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Florida Employers Insurance Service Corp. v. Norco, Inc., 723 So. 2d 875, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15615, 1998 WL 852313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Florida Employers Insurance Service Corporation (FEISCO) appeals from a summary final judgment in favor of Norco, Inc. (Nor-co). We reverse.

FEISCO, as assignee of the claims of Shields Systems, Inc. (Shields), sued Norco in an action based on common law indemnity to recover sums paid on a worker’s compensation claim which FEISCO paid on behalf of its insured, J. Kinson Cook, Inc., a general contractor, because Shields System, Inc., the employer and subcontractor, failed to provide workers’ compensation insurance as required by a construction contract between Shields and J. Kinson Cook, Inc. The complaint alleged that Shields applied through Norco for coverage in February, 1992, and paid the requisite premium, which application and premium were submitted to National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), the proposed insurer. NCCI, while a party to the suit, is not a party to the judgment on appeal. The complaint further alleged that Norco and NCCI were negligent in failing to provide coverage. The injury for which compensation was paid occurred in late March, 1992.

In support of the motion for summary judgment, Norco alleged that Shields had been negligent by allowing its prior policy to lapse, thus precluding it from seeking common law indemnity. The circumstances surrounding the lapse of a prior policy of insurance are irrelevant to the claim asserted in the action before the trial court. The summary judgment was based on this irrelevant fact and is, therefore, Reversed.

BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur. WOLF, J., dissents, with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McCain v. Florida Power Corporation
593 So. 2d 500 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards
374 So. 2d 490 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)
Valencia Ctr. v. Publix Super Mkt.
464 So. 2d 1267 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Safecare Medical Center v. Howard
670 So. 2d 1020 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. v. Harrison
583 So. 2d 744 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Loomis v. Howell
604 So. 2d 1241 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Holly Hill Fruit Products Co., Inc. v. Bob Staton, Inc.
275 So. 2d 583 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
723 So. 2d 875, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15615, 1998 WL 852313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-employers-insurance-service-corp-v-norco-inc-fladistctapp-1998.