Mena v. J.I.L. Construction Group Corp.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 2281
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mena was injured on December 4, 2004 while working on a residential development and became eligible for worker’s compensation through a contractor-subcontractor chain.
- Slorp denied Mena’s worker’s compensation claim, claiming Mena was employed by J.I.L., not Slorp, and asserting J.I.L. had coverage for compensation.
- J.I.L. denied the claim, asserting no employer/employee relationship and reserving defenses, then later admitted Mena was its employee in the context of the dispute.
- Mena filed a negligence action against J.I.L. and Slorp after petitioning for benefits; both defendants asserted worker’s compensation immunity as an affirmative defense.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants, holding immunity; the court then reversed as to J.I.L. due to material issues of fact regarding estoppel, but affirmed as to Slorp.
- The opinion discusses estoppel standards, whether denial language was irreconcilably inconsistent, and the statutory framework governing contractor-subcontractor immunity under the Florida Worker’s Compensation Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether J.I.L. is estopped from asserting immunity | Mena contends J.I.L.’s denial language was inconsistent with later immunity. | J.I.L. argues denial of employee relationship is not inconsistent with later immunity. | Issues of material fact remain; estoppel cannot be decided at summary judgment. |
| Whether Slorp is entitled to workers’ compensation immunity | Mena argues Slorp’s denial created potential estoppel against immunity. | Slorp maintained consistent positions; immunized as statutory employer. | Slorp is entitled to immunity; no estoppel against it. |
| Whether partial summary judgment on traditional defenses was proper | Mena sought preclusion of defenses like comparative negligence or assumption of risk. | Defendants argued immunity precludes these defenses. | Ruling on section 440.11 applicability premature; issue remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
| Whether Slorp’s status as statutory employer immunizes it from suit | Mena seeks to pierce immunity based on contractor-subcontractor liability scheme. | Slorp is immune when it ensures subcontractor coverage or itself secures coverage. | Slorp was immune as statutory employer; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marta v. Continental Manufacturing Co., 400 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (election of remedies not required before suit when compensation lacked coverage)
- Kent v. Tractor Supply Co., 966 So.2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (injury not encompassed by Act allows common-law remedies; estoppel may arise from inconsistent denials)
- Schroeder v. Peoplease Corp., 18 So.3d 1165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (denial language with multiple reasons creates factual questions for estoppel)
- Elliott v. Dugger, 542 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (genuine issues of material fact on estoppel when denial could be interpreted inconsistently)
- Adams Homes of Nw. Fla., Inc. v. Cranfill, 7 So.3d 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (statutory employer immunity and coverage implications)
- Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Barker, 886 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (non-tractor immunity when coverage secured; contractor's defense relies on coverage)
- Dempsey v. G&E Constr. Co., 556 So.2d 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (subcontractor-sub-subcontractor liability framework for workers’ compensation)
- Candyworld, Inc. v. Granite State Ins. Co., 652 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (statutory employer responsibility to secure coverage)