Ron Burton, Inc. v. Villwock
| Decision Date | 21 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1781,83-1781 |
| Citation | 477 So.2d 596,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2001 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2001 RON BURTON, INC., Juan F. Hernandez, a/k/a Pablo Rodriquez, Florida Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and Burton Citrus Harvesting, Inc., Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. Arthur P. VILLWOCK, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Miguel Landaverde, Deceased, Ernest Franklin Maroon, North Alabama Transportation, Inc., and Commercial Standard Insurance Company, Appellees/Cross Appellants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John W. Bussey, III, and Janet R. Delaura of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P.A., Rockledge, for Florida Farm Bureau.
Robin A. Blanton of Moss, Henderson & Lloyd, P.A., Vero Beach, for Rodriquez and Ron Burton, Inc. Edgar A. Brown of Lloyd, Brown, Hoskins & Becht, P.A., Fort Pierce, for Burton Citrus.
David Glenny and John P. Wiederhold of Wiederhold, Moses & Bulfin, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Maroon.
Sammy Cacciatore of Nance, Cacciatore & Sisserson, Melbourne; and William F. Sullivan, Coral Gables, for intervenors, Barroso, et al.
Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., and Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Villwock.
David R. Rigell and R. Fred Lewis of Magill, Reid & Lewis, P.A., Miami, for North Alabama and Commercial Standard.
Jonathan L. Alpert of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, amicus curiae for American Farm Bureau, Florida Farm, South Florida Tomato, U.S. Sugar, Florida Flower, Indian River, Florida Nurserymen, Florida Strawberry and Florida Sugar Cane.
This cause is one of many arising from a tragic and bizarre accident involving the head-on collision between an allegedly overloaded van, crowded with alien migrant agricultural laborers, and a tractor-trailer.
The van was one of two, leased to the same employer, proceeding north in convoy on a two-way single-lane highway. The van following stopped and blinked its lights, whereupon the lead van driver, supposing mechanical problems encountered by his companion, began to reverse south down the highway to render assistance. Unfortunately, in so doing, he edged over into the southbound lane and was struck head-on by a southbound tractor-trailer. The plaintiff, an alien agricultural worker, was killed as a result and the lawsuit which followed produced multiple party defendants, counterplaintiffs and cross-claimants.
The dramatis personae included:
Landaverde, the Plaintiff Deceased alien agricultural
laborer
Defendant Rodriguez Driver of lead van and crew
chief of Burton Citrus
Harvesting
Defendant Burton Citrus Decedent's and Rodriguez's
Harvesting, Inc. employer, lessee of both
vans
Defendant Ron Burton, Inc. Owner of the vans
Defendant Gomez Driver of the following van
not involved in collision.
Defendant Maroon Owner and driver of tractor
trailer which collided with
van.
Defendant North Alabama Interstate Commerce
Transportation, Inc. Commission permit owner under
which Maroon was operating
the tractor-trailer.
Defendant Commercial Insurer of North Alabama
Standard Insurance Co. Transportation, Inc.
Defendant Florida Farm Insurer of the van and
Bureau Casualty Insurance harvesting interests.
Co.
Intervenors The seven injured and two
personal representatives of
other decedents that were
copassengers with Landaverde
in the van.
Salome Landaverde Plaintiff's two minor children,
Antonio Landaverde who did not testify at trial.
Carlos Landaverde Plaintiff's two minor children,
Domingo Landaverde who testified at trial.
A more complete recitation of all the facts and rulings of the trial court are omitted and we address only such as are necessary to adequately support this opinion.
Perhaps the most encompassing of the trial court's rulings was the conclusion "that the Federal Labor Contractor Registration Act 1 pre-empts [sic] the Florida Workmen's [sic] Compensation Act and is in addition to and in excess of the remedies provided by the Florida Workmen's [sic] Compensation Act."
Under Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, Chapter 440.16, Florida Statutes (1981), in force on the date of the accident, death benefits to a deceased citizen employee, resident of this state, could not exceed $50,000. More to the point, compensation to a nonresident alien employee could not exceed $1,000. Thus, the court's ruling several months prior to the jury trial on liability, that these state statutory monetary limitations were preempted by federal legislation, was of enormous significance. This was particularly so as to the employer's insurance company, Florida Farm Bureau, because of a jury verdict in excess of $650,000 in favor of the decedent and his family.
Among the reasons we believe the trial court erred is that the recovery available to a deceased Florida resident citizen against his employer would be limited to $50,000. This being so, it is absurd to suppose that a nonresident alien would, or should, under identical circumstances, recover more than ten times that sum from his employer, because the latter result creates special benefits for a class of alien nonresident agricultural workers not enjoyed by other resident citizen workers. See Gutierrez v. Glaser Crandell Co., 388 Mich. 654, 202 N.W.2d 786 (1972).
Moreover, in DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976), the United States Supreme Court enunciated that preemption of state authority will never be presumed unless one of three reasons exist:
1. The matter is an exclusively regulated federal subject matter.
2. There is an ordained preemptive federal intent.
3. The state statute stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the federal act.
As to reason number one, its existence in a case such as is before us now has been rejected by the DeCanas court which specifically noted that compensation laws are within the state's legislative prerogative, thus disavowing the exclusivity of the federal subject matter. Id. at 356.
Regarding the second reason, 7 U.S.C.A. § 2051 specifically authorizes and encourages state action:
This chapter and the provisions contained herein are intended to supplement state action and compliance with this chapter shall not excuse anyone from compliance with appropriate state law and regulations. [Emphasis added.]
In the face of this above-quoted excerpt, it would be impossible to conclude that the federal government intended preemption.
Finally, as to the third reason, we do not believe the Florida legislation stands as an obstacle in the path of the federal act. Not only does this inevitably follow from a study of the first two considerations outlined above, but it is also stated in the federal act itself that its design is to provide some protection for migrant laborers. Basically, the act requires all employers to obtain a certificate of registration from the Department of Labor and file:
[W]ithin such time as the Secretary may prescribe, proof satisfactory to the Secretary of the financial responsibility of the applicant or proof satisfactory to the Secretary of the existence of a policy of insurance which insures such applicant against liability for damages to persons or property arising out of the applicant's ownership of, operation of, or his causing to be operated any vehicle for the transportation of migrant workers in connection with his business, activities, or operations as a farm labor contractor. The amount of any such policy of insurance shall be not less than the amount required under the law or regulation of any State in which such applicant operates a vehicle in connection with his business, activities, or operations as a farm labor contractor; but in no event shall the amount of such insurance be less than $5,000 for bodily injuries to or death of one person; $20,000 for bodily injuries to or death of all persons injured or killed in any one accident; $5,000 for the loss or damage in any one accident to property of others.
This language, and the transcripts of hearings held on this legislation (HR 5060, General Subcommittee on Labor, Committee on Education and Labor, 88th Cong...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oppenheim v. Reliance Ins. Co.
...clear intent of the insurer to divorce completely employer liability from insurer liability); see generally Ron Burton, Inc. v. Villwock, 477 So.2d 596, 600 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1985), cert. denied, 488 So.2d 69 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1982); Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Williams, 422 So.2d 7......
-
Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ayala
...the statute and pointed out that "compensation to a nonresident alien employee could not exceed $1,000." Ron Burton, Inc. v. Villwock, 477 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Moreover, the general rule is that "[n]onresident aliens are entitled to compensation the same as resident citizens ......
-
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Vassholz, WD
...to compensation under the workmen's compensation act." 12 Couch on Insurance 2d § 44A:73 (Rev ed. 1981); Ron Burton, Inc. v. Villwock, 477 So.2d 596, 600 (Fla.App.1985). 1 That is because the objective of both exclusions is to protect the employer from duplicate expense for work related inj......
-
Villwock v. Ron Burton, Inc.
...69 488 So.2d 69 Villwock (Arthur P.) v. Ron Burton, Inc. NO. 68,006 Supreme Court of Florida. APR 09, 1986 Appeal From: 4th DCA 477 So.2d 596 Rev. ...