Fidelity Const. Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., 30914
Decision Date | 24 May 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 30914,30914 |
Citation | 130 So.2d 612 |
Parties | FIDELITY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and Southern Indemnity Insurance Co., Petitioners. v. ARTHUR J. COLLINS & SON, INC., Phoenix of London Group, Florida Industrial Commission, and Charles Knight, Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Pallot, Marks, Lundeen, Poppell & Horwich and Frank M. Marks, Miami, for petitioners.
Errol S. Cornell, of Welsh, Cornell, Pyszka & Carlton, Miami, for Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., and London Guarantee & Accident Co.
Paul E. Speh and Burnis T. Coleman, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission and Edward L. Forer, Hollywood, for Charles Knight.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc. v. Knight et al., 117 So.2d 740, upon an alleged conflict with a decision of the District Court, Third District, in the case of Shirey v. Thompson et al., Fla.App., 115 So.2d 203, certiorari denied.
Both decisions involve a dispute as to liability for workmen's compensation under Section 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., reading as follows:
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the case at bar the petitioner Fidelity Construction Company subcontracted a portion of its construction contract to the respondent Collins, who in turn was found to have subcontracted to one Humphries The claimant Knight was an employee of Humphries, who failed to secure compensation payments. The deputy commissioner found Fidelity and Collins equally responsible for benefits due under the act. Upon review the respondent commission held that the subcontractor Collins was solely liable, and the commission was in turn reversed by the District Court, which concluded that the duty devolved upon the contractor Fidelity Construction Company to secure compensation or be liable primarily for claims by a worker whose immediate employer, a subcontractor of a subcontractor, was uninsured.
Upon very similar facts in the Shirey case, supra, the District Court, Third District, without opinion, left standing a commission ruling, under the same statute, that subcontractors, as well as employees, of a subcontractor would be covered by compensation policies of the latter, who 'had become a contractor within the meaning of this section.' Decision No. 2-819, Florida Industrial Commission, filed April 22, 1959.
There exists a prima facie conflict between the two decisions upon the pivotal point of law and on closely related facts, and one which is in this instance nonetheless direct because of the failure of the court to write an opinion in the Shirey case to substantiate its decision therein. Lake v. Lake, Fla., 103 So.2d 639; Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co. v. Branham, Fla., 104 So.2d 356, at page 357. This conclusion follows logically from a consideration of general principles governing scope and effect of an initial judicial review, whether by certiorari or otherwise, of rulings by administrative bodies in this jurisdiction. Wilson v. McCoy Mfg. Co., Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 659; Vol. 1, Fla.Jur., Administrative Law, Section 182. See also State ex rel. Gordon v. Trimble, 328 Mo. 760, 300 S.W. 475.
The liability imposed by the commission in the Shirey case could, upon the face of its opinion, have rested on no logical ground other than the statutory rule announced, in view of the commission's express refusal in that case to resolve an alleged conflict as to whether claimant's immediate employers were in fact subcontractors or were themselves employees of the first subcontractor against whom the award was made. The statute in controversy, Section 440.10(1), was therefore necessarily, and expressly, construed as prescribing a rule of law opposite to that announced in the opinion of the court in the case at bar. See Florida Power & Light v. Bell, Fla., 113 So.2d 697; Sinnamon v. Fowlkes, Fla., 101 So.2d 375. Under the particular circumstances the jurisdictional requirements for review by writ of certiorari in this court are thus met and the conflict must be resolved.
The ultimate question here is whether the Florida Industrial Commission has correctly interpreted the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act here in question. As the administrative body charged with the responsibility of administering the Act, its interpretation is entitled to great weight. While not conclusive upon the courts, such an administrative interpretation should not be overturned by the courts unless clearly erroneous and for the most cogent reasons. Gay v. Canada Dry Bottling Co., Fla., 59 So.2d 788. Contrary to the conclusion reached by the Second District Court of Appeal in the decision here reviewed, we do not find the commission's interpretation to be 'clearly erroneous'; nor do we find 'cogent reasons' for overturning the same. In fact, it is our view that the only reasonable and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
King v. State
...court on the same point of law.' 2 Nor should it do so. On the contrary this Court in the case of Fidelity Const. Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 612, 613, made the following 'There exists a prima facie conflict between the two decisions upon the pivotal point of l......
-
Foley v. Weaver Drugs, Inc., 32357
...to make uniform and harmonious the law on the particular point involved in the two decisions. See Fidelity Construction Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., Fla.1961, 130 So.2d 612. We there 'There exists a prima facie conflict between the two decisions upon the pivotal point of law and on......
-
ABC Liquors, Inc. (Store No. 126) v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, SS-372
...Inc. v. Ring, 122 So.2d 4 (Fla.1960); Miller v. Brewer Co. of Florida, Inc., 122 So.2d 565 (Fla.1960); Fidelity Constr. Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., 130 So.2d 612 (Fla.1961); Henderson v. Sol Walker and Co., 138 So.2d 323 (Fla.1962); State v. Florida Dev. Comm., 211 So.2d 8 (Fla.19......
-
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida v. Betts
...Although we occasionally depart from agency interpretations, it is only "for the most cogent reasons." Fidelity Constr. Co. v. Arthur J. Collins & Son, Inc., 130 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla.1961) (citing Gay, 59 So.2d at 790). We do not defer to an agency's interpretation that attempts "to enlarge,......