Fist Construction v. Obando
237 So. 3d 1050
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Santos Obando was injured while performing roofing work at a residential project in Homestead, Florida, in January 2014.
- Obando was hired and paid in cash by Hector Lopez, a Fist Construction supervisor/foreman; Lopez received the cash from Fist Construction.
- Obando filed workers’ compensation petitions against the general contractor and the prime roofing subcontractor; those petitions were denied as he was not their employee.
- Obando later filed tort claims against the general contractor, the prime roofing subcontractor and its principal, Fist Construction, and Lopez.
- After litigation began, Fist Construction’s carrier was notified; Fist’s owner initially disclaimed knowledge of Obando, but the carrier later accepted Obando’s petition and paid/authorized medical treatment.
- The trial court granted Obando’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding Fist Construction waived or was estopped from asserting workers’ compensation immunity; Fist appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fist Construction waived or was estopped from asserting workers’ compensation immunity | Obando argued Fist’s words/actions (initial disclaimers, carrier involvement) waived immunity under cases like Ocean Reef and Timmeny | Fist argued facts about employment relationship, identification of statutory employer, and insurer acceptance are disputed and immunity remains available | Reversed: disputed facts preclude resolving waiver/estoppel as a matter of law; summary judgment improper |
| Whether insurer’s initial handling estops Fist from invoking exclusive-remedy immunity | Obando: insurer’s actions and delay preclude immunity | Fist: insurer later accepted claim and facts about hiring/compensation remain contested; initial handling doesn’t automatically estop | Court: initial denial or delay does not automatically estop employer from asserting immunity; facts unresolved |
| Whether statute-of-limitations/administrative penalties resolved the immunity issue | Obando relied on precedents where limitations or carrier positions created estoppel | Fist: limitations not presented here; administrative remedies apply for penalties/delay | Court: statute-of-limitations not at issue; potential penalties are for administrative process, not dispositive here |
| Whether facts are sufficiently crystallized for summary judgment | Obando: argued evidence showed waiver/estoppel as matter of law | Fist: pointed to contested facts (who was statutory employer, nature of hiring/payment) making summary judgment inappropriate | Court: material factual disputes exist; summary judgment reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocean Reef Club v. Wilczewski, 99 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (insurer/employer positions can create waiver/estoppel where facts show inconsistent treatment)
- Timmeny v. Tropical Botanicals Corp., 615 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (estoppel where employer withheld coverage information and then invoked limitations)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (summary judgment inappropriate where material facts are disputed)
- Fly & Form, Inc. v. Marquez, 19 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (initial denial of benefits does not automatically estop assertion of workers’ compensation immunity)