Moreno v. Universal Trusses, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moreno v. Universal Trusses, Inc.

416 So. 2d 1221, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20618

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 1982

DocketNos. 81-854, 81-920

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 416 So. 2d 1221 (Moreno v. Universal Trusses, 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

Moreno v. Universal Trusses, Inc., 416 So. 2d 1221, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20618 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Appellants were injured in a forklift accident which occurred while Universal Trusses was engaged in expanding its warehouse on property it owned. They sued to recover damages from Universal for the negligent operation of the forklift by a Universal employee.

[1222]*1222The trial court granted summary judgment for Universal, ruling that the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. We disagree and reverse.

To benefit from the workers’ compensation bar, Universal must establish that it was an employer and contractor obligated to secure compensation for its employees. Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954). To qualify as a contractor, Universal would be required to prove that it was contractually obligated to perform work for another. Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Industries, Inc., 407 So.2d 910 (Fla.1981); State ex rel. Auchter Co. v. Luckie, 145 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 148 So.2d 278 (Fla.1962); Floyd v. Flash Welding Co., 127 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 133 So.2d 643 (Fla.1961); §§ 440.10, 440.11, Fla.Stat. (1979).

Finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning Universal’s status and relationship to appellants and that Jones v. Florida Power Corp. is controlling, we reverse the summary judgments and remand for further proceedings.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Appellants were injured in a forklift accident which occurred while Universal Trusses was engaged in expanding its warehouse on property it owned. They sued to recover damages from Universal for the negligent operation of the forklift by a Universal employee.

[1222]*1222The trial court granted summary judgment for Universal, ruling that the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. We disagree and reverse.

To benefit from the workers’ compensation bar, Universal must establish that it was an employer and contractor obligated to secure compensation for its employees. Jones v. Florida Power Corp., 72 So.2d 285 (Fla.1954). To qualify as a contractor, Universal would be required to prove that it was contractually obligated to perform work for another. Motchkavitz v. L. C. Boggs Industries, Inc., 407 So.2d 910 (Fla.1981); State ex rel. Auchter Co. v. Luckie, 145 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 148 So.2d 278 (Fla.1962); Floyd v. Flash Welding Co., 127 So.2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 133 So.2d 643 (Fla.1961); §§ 440.10, 440.11, Fla.Stat. (1979).

Finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning Universal’s status and relationship to appellants and that Jones v. Florida Power Corp. is controlling, we reverse the summary judgments and remand for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 So. 2d 1221, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreno-v-universal-trusses-inc-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack