Fossett v. Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC, 60 So. 3d 1155

Fossett sued SET for negligence; trial court granted summary judgment based on immunity under § 440.11(2).
Fossett was an Adecco employee leased to SET; Adecco paid her payroll under a SET–Adecco contract.
Fossett was injured at SET’s premises while performing SET’s work; she was near the car wash exit when a vehicle ran over her.
She settled workers’ compensation benefits with Adecco and later asserted a negligence claim against SET.
SET asserted immunity under § 440.11(2), extending immunity to borrowed employees of a help-supply services company.
The contract between SET and Adecco gave SET the right to direct and control Fossett’s work, constituting general supervision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SET is immune under § 440.11(2) as a borrowed-employee scenario.	Fossett contends genuine dispute exists about SET’s control over her work.	SET had the contractual right to control Fossett’s work; evidence shows general supervision suffices.	Yes, immunity applies; SET’s general supervision evidenced by contract.

Morelli v. St. Lucie Falls Prop. Owners Ass’n, 956 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (borrowing-servant framework and OSHA code reference to 7363)
Sagarino v. Marriott Corp., 644 So.2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (definition of help-supply/borrowing concepts)
Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 246 So.2d 98 (Fla. 1971) (borrowed servant doctrine factors)
Coleman v. Mini-Mac Maint. Serv., Inc., 706 So.2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (three-factor test for borrowed servant status)
Hazealeferiou v. Labor Ready, 947 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (application of borrowed-servant doctrine to employee leasing)
Derogatis v. Fawcett Mem’l Hosp., 892 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (special-employer liability under borrowed-employee theory or § 440.11(2))
State v. Camil, 279 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1973) (statutory incorporation by reference and retroactivity concerns)