McLean v. Mundy
| Decision Date | 22 June 1955 |
| Citation | 81 So.2d 501 |
| Parties | Dugald McLEAN, Petitioner, v. Thomas J. MUNDY, Public National Insurance Co., Gables Plastering Co., Inc., Miami Plastering Co., Royal Indemnity Co., and the Florida IndustrialCommission, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Lucille Snowden, Miami, for petitioner.
Truett & Watkins, Tallahassee, and Wm. R. Alvin, Miami, for Thomas J. Mundy.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray, W. L. Gray, Jr., and Clemen J. Ehrlich, Miami, for Gables Plastering Co., Inc., and Miami Plastering Co., and Royal Indemnity Co.
Burnis T. Coleman, Rodney Durrance and Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, for Florida Industrial Commission, respondent.
This is a workmen's compensation case which is making its second appearance before this court. In Mundy v. McLean, Fla., 72 So.2d 275, we reversed an award in claimant's favor against Mundy for compensation for an occupational disease on the ground that Mundy was not the employer 'in whose employment the employee was last injuriously exponsed to the hazards of such disease,' Section 440.151(5), Fla.Stat.1953, F.S.A. Our reversal was 'without prejudice to the right of appellee (claimant) to pursue his remedies against the proper employer,' but with the caveat that no opinion was expressed 'concerning the effect of the lepse of time upon appellee's claim, since the question is not before us.'
After the going down of the mandate of this court in the above-styled cause-which was some two and one-half years after the claimant was last injuriously exposed to the hazards of the disease-he filed an amendment to his original claim against Mundy by adding thereto the names of the two employers for whom he had worked after he left Mundy's employ. Both of these employers pleaded the two-year limitation period prescribed by Section 440.19, Fla.Stat.1953, F.S.A., in bar of the claim, their plea was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and the Full Commission, and this petition for certiorari filed by the claimant attacks the order of the Full Commission dismissing his claim. We can find no error in the order here reviewed.
The purpose of the limitations provision of workmen's compensation acts 'is the same as that of any limitations statute: to protect the employer against claims too old to be successfully investigated and defended.' Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 78.20, page 253. The fact that a claim is filed against Employer X does nothing to notify Employers Y and Z that they may be called upon to defend a claim for compensation, even though the claim is for the precise disability which forms the bais for the claim against Employer X. Until they are, in fact, charged with liability by the filing of a claim against them, the statute of limitations continues to run against such claim. This is the rule applied in ordinary legal proceedings as to adding or substituting new defendants (see the cases collected in the annotation in 8 A.L.R.2d beginning at page 112), and it appears to have been universally applied in proceedings for the determination of workmen's compensation claims. See Didier v. Crescent Wharf & Warehouse Co., D.C.Cal.1936, 15 F.Supp. 91, 93; Brown v. McMillan Material Co., Tex.Civ.App.1937, 108 S.W.2d 914; Beach v. Union Gas & Electric Co., 1935, 130 Ohio St. 280, 199 N.E. 181; Sentinel News Co. v. Industrial Commission, 1937, 224 Wis. 355, 271 N.W. 413, 271 N.W. 819; Martensen v. Schutte Lumber Co., 1953, 236 Mo.App. 1084, 162 S.W.2d 312. The right of an employer to plead the statute of limitations in the quasi-judicial proceedings in which workmen's compensation claims are determined in this state is no less 'substantive' than the right of a defendant to do so in an ordinary legal proceeding. '* * * the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cramer v. State of Florida
...from common law tort actions in exchange for accepting liability that is limited and determinate regardless of fault. McLean v. Mundy, 81 So.2d 501 (Fla.1955). Further, the Florida Legislature has indicated that workers' compensation is "based on mutual renunciation of common law rights and......
-
De Ayala v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
...system that made it virtually impossible for businesses to predict or insure for the cost of industrial accidents. See McLean v. Mundy, 81 So.2d 501, 503 (Fla.1955). Thus, in harmony with article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution, 5 the legislature abolished the old tort system and ......
-
Taylor v. School Bd. of Brevard County
...system that made it virtually impossible for businesses to predict or insure for the cost of industrial accidents. See McLean v. Mundy, 81 So.2d 501, 503 (Fla.1955). De Ayala v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 543 So.2d 204, 206 THE "UNRELATED WORKS" EXCEPTION Notwithstanding its provisi......
-
Harding v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
...from common law tort actions in exchange for accepting liability that is limited and determinate regardless of fault. McLean v. Mundy, 81 So.2d 501 (Fla.1955). In order to be eligible for FWCA benefits which are provided to compensate for lost ability to work, a worker must show a partial o......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...constitutional challenge rejected).184. De Ayala v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins., 543 So. 2d 204, 206 (Fla. 1989) (citing McLean v. Mundy, 81 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1955)).185. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993); Smith, 507 So. 2d at 1091; Walker & LaBerge, Inc. v. Halligan, 344 S......