Florida Power & Light Co. v. Huwer
| Decision Date | 09 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-902,86-902 |
| Citation | 508 So.2d 489,12 Fla. L. Weekly 1431 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1431 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Carolyn Sue HUWER, Appellee. |
Daniels & Hicks and Bambi G. Blum, Miami, for appellant.
Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton & Douberley, Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin and Marc Cooper and Maureen E. Lefebvre, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant Florida Power and Light Company [hereinafter "FP & L"] from an adverse final judgment in a negligence action. The sole point raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying FP & L's motion to amend its answer to include the affirmative defense of the workers' compensation exclusivity bar to the instant suit. We disagree and affirm based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, it is undisputed that FP & L paid the plaintiff Carolyn Sue Huwer [hereinafter "Huwer"] workers' compensation benefits in the amount of $35,392.40 for an injury which she incurred while working as a security guard for The Wackenhut Corporation [hereinafter "Wackenhut"] at FP & L's Turkey Point nuclear plant. Huwer was an employee of Wackenhut; Wackenhut was an independent contractor hired by FP & L to guard its facility at Turkey Point.
Second, FP & L is not entitled, as urged, to the workers' compensation exclusivity defense by virtue of its payment of workers' compensation benefits to Huwer as an otherwise allegedly non-covered employee as defined by Section 440.04, Florida Statutes (1981). This is so because Huwer (a) was never employed by FP & L, and (b) was not otherwise excluded or exempted from the protection of the Workers' Compensation Act [hereinafter "the Act"]--both of which are circumstances required by the above statute in order for the employer to acquire the exclusivity defense as to tort claims of otherwise non-covered employees. We reject the contrary arguments of FP & L, including the argument that Huwer was an independent contractor and was therefore excluded from protection of the Act under Section 440.02(2)(d)(1), Florida Statutes (1981). Huwer was an employee of an independent contractor, but was never an independent contractor herself; she was plainly covered by the Act as an employee of Wackenhut. See Gulfstream Land & Devel. Corp. v. Wilkerson, 420 So.2d 587, 590 (Fla.1982); Conklin v. Cohen, 287 So.2d 56, 59-60 (Fla.1973); Smith...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Locke v. Suntrust Bank
...such employer ...." Id. § 440.11. This is sometimes known as the workers' compensation exclusivity bar. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Huwer, 508 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987). The Florida courts have established a two-part, work-connectedness test for whether the exclusivity bar app......
-
Cartier v. Florida Power & Light Co.
...work was done on FPL's property, then section 440.11 provides immunity from negligence suits. We distinguish Florida Power & Light Company v. Huwer, 508 So.2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Florida Power & Light Co. v. Huwer also involved a tort claim arising from an injury of an employee of a sub......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. Turner
...and BASKIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See McCormick v. Premiere Group, Inc., 523 So.2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Huwer, 508 So.2d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); §§ 440.10; 440.11, Fla.Stat. ...