Palma v. GEORGIA FARM BUREAU INS. CO., A04A2359.

Decision Date03 November 2004
Docket NumberNo. A04A2359.,A04A2359.
Citation270 Ga. App. 333,606 S.E.2d 341
PartiesPALMA v. GEORGIA FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jason A. Craig, Vidalia, for appellant.

Brown, Rountree & Stewart, George H. Rountree, Laura H. Wheaton, Statesboro, for appellee.

BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge.

In this declaratory judgment action regarding entitlement to insurance coverage for personal injuries occurring during farming operations, Florencio Palma appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Georgia Farm Bureau Insurance Company (the Bureau), contending that the trial court erred by determining that Palma was not an employee of Stanley Farms1 covered by the policy in question. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56(c). A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp.2

Viewed in this light, the record shows that Stanley Farms grows and harvests cucumbers and onions. On June 7, 2002, during the harvest in one of Stanley Farms' fields, Armando Cruz accidentally drove a truck over Palma's leg. Both Palma and Armando Cruz were field workers under the direct supervision of Oscar Cruz, Armando Cruz's brother and one of four supervisors hired by Stanley Farms to conduct and oversee the harvest.

Following the accident, Palma brought suit against Oscar Cruz, Armando Cruz, and Stanley Farms, seeking compensation for his injuries. In turn, the Bureau filed a separate declaratory judgment action to determine whether its insurance policy with Stanley Farms, which insures personal injuries suffered by Stanley Farms' employees, covered the accident.3 The Bureau contended that it did not owe coverage because: (1) Oscar Cruz was an independent contractor and not a covered employee of Stanley Farms under the policy; and (2) Palma and Armando Cruz were employees of Oscar Cruz, not Stanley Farms.

After considering the evidence, the trial court granted the Bureau's motion for summary judgment. Palma now challenges this ruling, contending that questions of fact remain whether Oscar Cruz, Armando Cruz, and Palma were employees of Stanley Farms.

Although the legal conclusions regarding the employment status of Oscar Cruz, Armando Cruz, and Palma are strongly disputed, the facts on which this legal conclusion must be based are not.

The record shows that, in order to harvest its produce, Stanley Farms employs four supervisors, one of whom is Oscar Cruz. Each supervisor, acting independently and with his own resources, is expected to recruit his own workers to harvest the fields. For the 2002 growing season, Stanley Farms entered into a supervisor agreement with Oscar Cruz which states:

Each supervisor will be responsible for keeping his workers in line with the Stanley Farms rules and regulations in the field. Each supervisor will make sure all supplies are available for each worker according to Dept. of Labor rules. Any worker that doesn't follow rules will be dismissed by the supervisor he works for. Stanley Farms will do each supervisor's payroll due to Department of Labor rules of making sure each worker is paid minimum wage and all tax deposits are made timely. Each supervisor is responsible for insuring his trucks and keeping them in good condition while in Stanley Farms fields. Stanley Farms is not responsible for any employees hired by supervisors.

Pursuant to this agreement, Oscar Cruz, who is registered with the Georgia Department of Labor as an independent farm labor contractor, hired approximately 40 resident alien workers to harvest Stanley Farms' fields under his supervision. After hiring a worker, Oscar Cruz filled out an IRS Form I-9, listing himself as the worker's employer. He then submitted this I-9 to Stanley Farms.

The record further shows that Oscar Cruz retained authority over the workers hired by him, including the unilateral right to both hire and fire them. The only direction which Stanley Farms gave Oscar Cruz with regard to his workers was telling him which fields would be ready to harvest on a given date, along with the agreement that the workers would not be allowed to break certain rules (e.g., drinking alcohol on the job).

Oscar Cruz's workers were paid by the number of baskets of produce harvested by them, and, each week, Oscar Cruz relayed this number to Stanley Farms for payroll processing. Oscar Cruz, himself, was paid a flat fee based on the weight of the overall product delivered by him to Stanley Farms. Using the information provided by Oscar Cruz, Stanley Farms calculated the payment for each of Oscar Cruz's workers and cut a check for them. Stanley Farms then deducted this amount from its payment to Oscar Cruz. Oscar Cruz then delivered the checks to the workers.

Prior to 1998, Stanley Farms issued a single check to each of its supervisors and then allowed the supervisors to pay their workers. After 1998, however, Stanley Farms contends that it was advised by the Georgia Department of Labor that it would be preferable for Stanley Farms to deduct the workers' pay from that of the supervisors and issue individual checks to the workers. In that way, the Department of Labor could ensure that the supervisor was properly paying the workers in accordance with minimum wage legislation.

With regard to tax formalities, the record also shows that Stanley Farms issued Oscar Cruz a 1099 Form designed for independent contractors each year, and Cruz was responsible for withholding his own taxes. Oscar Cruz reported his 1099 earnings as business income. In addition, if Oscar Cruz did any other small tasks beyond his supervisor duties, Stanley Farms issued a W-2 to him. On his personal return, Cruz listed himself as self-employed.

With regard to the workers, as stated, Stanley Farms issued checks directly to them. As such, Stanley Farms also issued W-2s to the workers, on which Stanley Farms was listed as the workers' employer without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Underberg v. Southern Alarm, Inc., A06A2349.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 9 maart 2007
    ...no record of criminal activity). 10. C.K. Security Systems, supra at 163(2), 223 S.E.2d 453. 11. See, e.g., Palma v. Ga. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 270 Ga.App. 333, 606 S.E.2d 341 (2004) (tests for determining whether worker is independent contractor or employee); Davis v. Beasley Timber Co., 24......
  • Golden Peanut Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 4 maart 2022
    ...in Case No. A21A1270. Judgment reversed in Case No. A21A1269. Doyle, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.1 See Palma v. Ga. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. , 270 Ga. App. 333, 606 S.E.2d 341 (2004).2 Palma , 270 Ga. App. at 333, 606 S.E.2d 341 (citations and punctuation omitted).3 Clack v. Hasnat , 354 Ga. A......
  • Ruiz v. AFFINITY LOGISTICS CORP.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 22 maart 2010
    ...to perform all details of the job, including the tools he should use and the procedures he should follow. Palma v. Ga. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 270 Ga.App. 333, 606 S.E.2d 341, 344 (2004) (citations omitted). Courts, including Georgia courts, have also looked to so-called "common law factors" ......
  • Golden Peanut Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 4 maart 2022
    ...J., and Brown, J., concur. --------- Notes: [1] See Palma v. Ga. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 270 Ga.App. 333 (606 S.E.2d 341) (2004). [2] Palma, 270 Ga.App. at 333 (citations and punctuation [3] Clack v. Hasnat, 354 Ga.App. 502, 503 (1) (841 S.E.2d 210) (2020). [4] Id. at 504 (2) (citations and p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT