Bend v. Shamrock Services
59 So. 3d 153
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Claimant seeks workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident while driving a Shamrock Services vehicle; policy with Zenith Insurance was in effect for over three years at the time of cancellation.
- Zenith canceled the policy alleging misrepresentations by the Employer (Shamrock Services) about the business and asserted Claimant was an independent contractor, not an employee.
- JCC voided the policy ab initio under section 627.409(1)(a) and found Claimant was an independent contractor in the construction industry, not an employee of the insured entity.
- JCC also found the Employer had engaged in material misrepresentations and failure to file required reports, affecting underwriting and premium calculations.
- The Employer was not present at the hearing; Zenith retained the burden to prove misrepresentations and to enforce remedies under chapter 440.
- The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded to determine the appropriate benefits due Claimant, noting the JCC lacked authority to void the policy ab initio and to conclusively determine Employer identity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the JCC lacked authority to void the policy ab initio | Bend contends JCC exceeded statutory powers. | Zenith argues ab initio voidance is permissible under misrepresentation. | JCC lacked jurisdiction to void ab initio; remanded. |
| Whether Zenith could deny benefits based on employee vs. independent contractor status | Claimant was an uninsured employee under construction work. | Employer misrepresented duties to obtain coverage; policy voidable. | Issue remanded to determine proper employee status and benefits. |
| Whether there was an alternative legally cognizable entity employing Claimant | Claimant was employed by the Employer’s single entity. | Alternative entity (separate Shamrock Painting Services) employed Claimant. | No competent evidence of a separate entity; JCC’s finding vacated. |
| Whether remedies outside chapter 440 (e.g., section 627.409(1)) are applicable | Carrier’s remedy may lie under contract law or insurance code. | Chapter 440 provides exclusive remedies for under- or improper coverage. | Exclusionary interpretation favored; exclusive remedies within Chapter 440; Perkins distinguished. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Computer Science Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (workers' comp is creature of statute; JCC authority is limited)
- McArthur v. Mental Health Care, Inc., 35 So.3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (limits on JCC jurisdiction; cannot read into statute)
- Curtis-Hale, Inc. v. Geltz, 610 So.2d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (contract interpretation within JCC duties)
- Tampa Bay Area NFL Football, Inc. v. Jarvis, 668 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (JCC may interpret contracts to determine rights and responsibilities)
- Avalon Ctr. v. Hardaway, 967 So.2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (JCC is not a court of general jurisdiction; cannot reform contracts)
- Fred Stevens Tree Co. v. Harrison, 944 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (limits on JCC authority; contract remedies under ch. 440)
- Perkins v. A. Perkins Drywall, 615 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (exclusive remedies within Chapter 440; employer-fraud remedies exist outside but do not override)