Suarez v. Transmontaigne Services, Inc.
127 So. 3d 845
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Suarez, employed by Gonzalez & Sons, was injured at Port Everglades when an industrial hose struck him after a boom truck allegedly was negligently operated by a Transmontaigne employee.
- Gonzalez & Sons paid worker’s compensation benefits; Suarez then sued Transmontaigne Services, Inc. (TSI) and Transmontaigne Product Services, Inc. (TPSI) for negligence.
- TSI asserted immunity under Florida’s workers’ compensation scheme, claiming Suarez was TSI’s "borrowed servant," and moved for summary judgment.
- The corporate relationships at the port are complex: TPSI owned rolling stock, TSI employed operational workers, Transmontaigne Partners, LP owned terminal assets, and Transmontaigne GP, LLC paid Gonzalez & Sons; testimony conflicted about which entity contracted for Gonzalez & Sons’ services.
- Suarez submitted an affidavit denying knowledge of TSI and stating no contract with TSI; other testimony showed he knew he worked for “Transmontaigne” but did not distinguish entities.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for TSI; the appellate court reviewed whether material factual disputes existed about the borrowed-servant relationship and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Suarez was a "borrowed servant" of TSI (i.e., special employer) | Suarez did not knowingly consent to employment by TSI and did not understand any contract with TSI or its affiliates | TSI argues Suarez was under TSI’s direction/control and therefore acted as TSI’s borrowed servant, entitling TSI to immunity | Reversed: material facts are disputed as to which Transmontaigne entity contracted for, supervised, and controlled Suarez, so borrowed-servant status is not conclusively established |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on immunity grounds | Suarez contends factual disputes (who contracted, who supervised, extent of control) preclude summary judgment | TSI contends the record shows direction/control and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Reversed: on summary judgment review, viewing evidence favorably to Suarez, TSI failed to carry its burden to show no genuine material factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 246 So.2d 98 (Fla. 1971) (articulates borrowed-servant doctrine and presumption favoring general employer)
- Sagarino v. Marriott Corp., 644 So.2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (elements required to show special employer/borrowed servant)
- Biggins v. Fantasma Prods., Inc. of Fla., 943 So.2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (contracts for hire critical; employee consent required; direction alone insufficient)
- Smith v. Greg’s Crane Serv., Inc., 576 So.2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (reaffirms presumption that employee remains with general employer)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Martins v. MRG of S. Fla., Inc., 112 So.3d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (burden on movant to show no genuine issue of material fact)