Zurich American Insurance v. Lawhorn

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zurich American Insurance v. Lawhorn

789 So. 2d 536, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10179, 2001 WL 822831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 20, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-4762

StatusPublished

This text of 789 So. 2d 536 (Zurich American Insurance v. Lawhorn) 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

Zurich American Insurance v. Lawhorn, 789 So. 2d 536, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10179, 2001 WL 822831 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the JCC’s ruling that Florida has jurisdiction to determine the compens-ability of claimant’s out-of-state industrial injury because the employment contract [537]*537was made in Florida. See § 440.09(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); Miller Contracting Co. of Ohio v. Hutto, 156 So.2d 745 (Fla.1963).

In Miller, the Florida Supreme Court concluded under very similar facts that although the claimant worked at different times and at various out-of-state job sites, his employment relationship with Miller Contracting Company was continual. The Court concluded that the claimant’s employment contract was made in Florida because the claimant initially accepted Miller Contracting Company’s offer of employment in Florida. Thus, the Court held that Florida had jurisdiction to determine the claimant’s industrial injury he sustained while working in Georgia. 156 So.2d at 747.

Similarly in this case, the claimant’s employment relationship with Appellant, Cannon Sline, Inc., was continuous from the time he accepted the initial offer of employment in 1995 at his Florida home. Cannon Sline considered the claimant to be a continuing employee and the claimant did not work for any other company.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, KAHN and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the JCC’s ruling that Florida has jurisdiction to determine the compens-ability of claimant’s out-of-state industrial injury because the employment contract [537]*537was made in Florida. See § 440.09(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); Miller Contracting Co. of Ohio v. Hutto, 156 So.2d 745 (Fla.1963).

In Miller, the Florida Supreme Court concluded under very similar facts that although the claimant worked at different times and at various out-of-state job sites, his employment relationship with Miller Contracting Company was continual. The Court concluded that the claimant’s employment contract was made in Florida because the claimant initially accepted Miller Contracting Company’s offer of employment in Florida. Thus, the Court held that Florida had jurisdiction to determine the claimant’s industrial injury he sustained while working in Georgia. 156 So.2d at 747.

Similarly in this case, the claimant’s employment relationship with Appellant, Cannon Sline, Inc., was continuous from the time he accepted the initial offer of employment in 1995 at his Florida home. Cannon Sline considered the claimant to be a continuing employee and the claimant did not work for any other company.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, KAHN and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 So. 2d 536, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10179, 2001 WL 822831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zurich-american-insurance-v-lawhorn-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack