Marco Polo Hotel v. Popielarczyk

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marco Polo Hotel v. Popielarczyk

622 So. 2d 104, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7900, 1993 WL 277115

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1993

DocketNo. 93-434

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 622 So. 2d 104 (Marco Polo Hotel v. Popielarczyk) 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

Marco Polo Hotel v. Popielarczyk, 622 So. 2d 104, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7900, 1993 WL 277115 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An affidavit of the injured employee of the subcontractor which averred “[tjhat to [his] knowledge” he was not a statutory employee of the contractor, was not sufficient competent evidence to counter the affidavits of the parties to the service contract. Thompson v. Citizens Nat’l Bank, 433 So.2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Campbell v. Salman, 384 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(e). Further, unambiguous language in the contract itself showed conclusively that the appellee was the statutory employee of the contractor. Tampa Port Auth. v. Tampa Barge Servs., Inc., 463 So.2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The contractor, as the statutory employer of an injured worker who was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, was entitled to a summary judgment on its immunity defense. Section 440.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1991); Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Indus., Inc., 407 So.2d 910, 913 (Fla.1981) (a contractor is immune from suit by an employee of a subcontractor).¹

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

An affidavit of the injured employee of the subcontractor which averred “[tjhat to [his] knowledge” he was not a statutory employee of the contractor, was not sufficient competent evidence to counter the affidavits of the parties to the service contract. Thompson v. Citizens Nat’l Bank, 433 So.2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Campbell v. Salman, 384 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(e). Further, unambiguous language in the contract itself showed conclusively that the appellee was the statutory employee of the contractor. Tampa Port Auth. v. Tampa Barge Servs., Inc., 463 So.2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The contractor, as the statutory employer of an injured worker who was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, was entitled to a summary judgment on its immunity defense. Section 440.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1991); Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Indus., Inc., 407 So.2d 910, 913 (Fla.1981) (a contractor is immune from suit by an employee of a subcontractor).¹

Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 104, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7900, 1993 WL 277115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marco-polo-hotel-v-popielarczyk-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack