Hastings v. Demming

• Decision Date: 31 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-00368,96-00368
• Citation: 682 So.2d 1107
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1756 Herbert HASTINGS and American Sign Company, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Charles DEMMING and Diana Demming, husband and wife, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1107

682 So.2d 1107

21 Fla. L. Weekly D1756

Herbert HASTINGS and American Sign Company, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Charles DEMMING and Diana Demming, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 96-00368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District.

July 31, 1996.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1996.

Chester L. Skipper and Jesse L. Skipper of the Skipper Law Firm, St. Petersburg, for Appellant Hastings.

Daniel A. Carlton, Sarasota, for Appellant American Sign.

Allyson Palmer of John P. Graves, Jr., Chartered, Sarasota, for Appellees Charles and Diana Demming.

LAZZARA, Judge.

The appellants, Herbert Hastings (Hastings) and American Sign Company (ASC), seek review of the trial court's nonfinal order denying their motions for summary judgment which alleged their entitlement to workers' compensation immunity in a suit for personal injuries brought by the appellees, Charles Demming and Diana Demming. Because we conclude, as urged by the appellees, that this order has not determined that Hastings and ASC are not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi), we dismiss this appeal. In doing so, we certify conflict with other district courts of appeal on the issue of jurisdiction under this particular rule and also certify a question of great public importance regarding under what circumstances the rule vests jurisdiction in an appellate court to review such a nonfinal order. Finally, we dispose of certain motions filed by the parties during the pendency of this appeal in order to highlight the pitfalls inherent in allowing unwarranted appeals under the rule.

The appellee, Charles Demming, was injured while in the scope of his employment with ASC when cables on a ladder on which he was working failed, causing the ladder to collapse and Mr. Demming to sustain serious personal injuries. He and his wife later sued ASC, as well as Hastings, who was an officer and director of ASC. The gravamen of the appellees' complaint was that Hastings was guilty of culpable negligence in failing to properly maintain the cables and that ASC was guilty of failing to exercise reasonable care in its supervision of Hastings in his capacity as the overseer of the company's operations.

In his motion for summary judgment, Hastings asserted that he was entitled to workers' compensation immunity under section 440.11, Florida Statutes (1991), in that the facts did not support a finding that he was guilty of culpable negligence as alleged. ASC's motion also invoked the immunity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, contending that Mr. Demming had applied for and received workers' compensation benefits and that his sole and exclusive remedy as established in the record was limited to such benefits. The trial court, after a hearing which is not part of this record, entered a perfunctory order denying each motion without explanation. Hastings and ASC then filed a notice of appeal invoking rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) as the basis for this court's jurisdiction to review the "non-final order denying Defendants' motions for summary judgment on the grounds of workers' compensation immunity." For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the rule does not confer jurisdiction to review this particular order.

We begin our extended analysis of this complex jurisdictional issue with an examination of Mandico v. Taos Construction, Inc., 605 So.2d 850 (Fla.1992), in which the supreme court amended rule 9.130(a)(3) by adding another type of order to the category of limited nonfinal orders of lower tribunals which are subject to appellate review, i.e, a nonfinal order which determines "(vi) that a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law." In Mandico, the court held, in response to a certified question, that a writ of prohibition was no longer the appropriate remedy to seek review of a trial court order denying workers' compensation immunity in a civil suit. In doing so, it receded from its prior opinion in Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree, 73 So.2d 287 (Fla.1954), in which the court had granted prohibition because an examination of the relevant provisions of the then Workmen's Compensation Act conclusively established that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under the Act and not in a separate civil suit brought against the employer. The court in Mandico commented, however, that "[w]e suspect that one reason the court was willing to permit prohibition in Murphree was to avoid the necessity of requiring the trial to proceed to its conclusion when it was evident from a construction of the relevant statutes that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy was to obtain workers' compensation benefits." 605 So.2d at 854 (emphasis added). In line with this philosophy, and in furtherance of its "concern for an early resolution of controlling issues," the court then amended rule 9.130(a)(3) as noted above. Id. at 854-855. See also Ramos v. Univision Holdings, Inc., 655 So.2d 89, 91 (Fla.1995) (amendment to rule in Mandico "was intended to promote early resolution of cases in which it is evident that the plaintiff's exclusive remedy is workers' compensation.") (emphasis added).

We have emphasized the supreme court's use of the word "evident" because it plays a crucial role in our analysis of exactly what type of order we have jurisdiction to review under the rule. We note, in that regard, the court's prior definition of this term:

The word "evident" is defined by Webster as "clear to the understanding and satisfactory to the judgment." Synonyms: "Manifest, plain, clear, obvious, conclusive." The word "manifest" is defined as follows: "To put beyond question of doubt."

Russell v. State, 71 Fla. 236, 240, 71 So. 27, 28 (1916). We feel safe in assuming that when the supreme court used the word "evident" in its opinions in Mandico and Ramos, it was aware of its previous judicial construction of the word in its opinion in Russell. Cf. Collins Inv. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 164 So.2d 806, 809 (Fla.1964) (legislature presumed to be acquainted with judicial decisions on the subject concerning which it subsequently enacts a statute).

Thus, by its use of the word "evident" in Mandico and Ramos, and its previous definition of that word in Russell, we perceive that the supreme court intended rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi) to apply only when an appellate court is presented with a record with facts so manifest it can readily conclude that a plaintiff's exclusive remedy is in fact workers' compensation, thereby promoting an early resolution of the case at the appellate level. We conclude, therefore, that in amending the rule the supreme court's clear intent was to confer jurisdiction to review only that type of nonfinal order in which a lower tribunal, based on undisputed material facts, has determined clearly and conclusively, beyond doubt, that a party is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity as a matter of law. Accordingly, to be appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(vi), an order denying a motion for summary judgment asserting workers' compensation immunity must essentially determine the nonexistence of that defense such that it effectively precludes a party from having a jury decide whether a plaintiff's exclusive remedy is workers' compensation benefits.

Against this backdrop, we now turn to an analysis of summary judgment law to assist us in determining whether the order under review meets the jurisdictional test we have outlined. Our supreme court noted long ago that "[a] motion for summary judgment necessarily proceeds upon the theory that the legal issues are fully settled by the pleadings, and there exists no genuine dispute as to a material fact." White v. Fletcher, 90 So.2d 129, 131-132 (Fla.1956). Consistent with this statement, it later held that "the function of a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine if the respective parties can produce sufficient evidence in support of the operative issues made in the pleadings to require a trial to determine who shall prevail." Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236, 239 (Fla.1963). Thus, "[a] summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law." Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985) (emphasis added). If the facts are not so fixed and definite, such that the evidence raises any issue of material fact by way of conflicts, different reasonable inferences, or a tendency to prove the issues, then the evidence should be submitted to a jury for its determination of questions of fact. Id.

Equally important to our analysis is Martin County v. Edenfield, 609 So.2d 27 (Fla.1992), in which the supreme court applied summary judgment principles within the context of a statutory defense to a cause of action brought under section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (1989), Florida's "Whistle-blower's Act of 1986." The court explained that "[u]nder Florida law, a 'defense' is any allegation raised by the defendant that, if true, would defeat or avoid the plaintiff's cause of action." Id. at 29. It observed, however, that such a defense should not be the basis for granting a motion for summary judgment "unless the evidence supporting the defense is so compelling as to establish that no issue of material fact actually exists." Id. Thus, the court concluded, "[d]efendants moving for summary judgment must conclusively prove both the factual existence of the defense upon which they rely and its legal sufficiency." Id. (emphasis in original).

We glean from this analysis a very clear theme permeating the supreme court's pronouncements regarding the law of summary judgment: unless and until the material facts at issue presented to the trial court are so "crystallized," conclusive, and compelling as to leave nothing for the court's determination but a question of law, those facts, as well as any defenses, must be...