VMS, Inc. v. Alfonso
147 So. 3d 1071
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- VMS, Inc. had a contract with the Florida Department of Transportation to maintain and manage roadways and bridges and secured workers’ compensation insurance for its own employees.
- VMS subcontracted part of the work to ABC, which also was required to secure workers’ compensation insurance for ABC’s employees.
- ABC hired Contreras, who in turn employed day laborers including Elvis Alfonso; Alfonso sustained serious burns while performing work covered by the VMS/ABC/Contreras contract.
- Neither ABC nor VMS reported the incident to their workers’ compensation carriers, and Alfonso did not file a workers’ compensation claim.
- Alfonso sued ABC and VMS for negligence in 2012; ABC settled and is no longer a party; VMS asserted workers’ compensation immunity and alternative theories of comparative negligence.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment estopping VMS from asserting immunity, which this court reverses, holding that VMS maintained coverage and is immune.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VMS’s securing of coverage precludes liability | VMS contends it is immune once coverage is secured. | VMS’s immunity is dependent on actual payment or notice to carriers? | VMS immunity secured by coverage; no estoppel. |
| Effect of not notifying carrier | Failure to notify carriers estops immunity. | Notification is not required if coverage is secured. | Not notifying carrier does not destroy immunity when coverage is secured. |
| Scope of statutory employer immunity under 440.10–11 | Contractor may be liable for subcontractor failures and thus not immune. | If contractor secures coverage, immunity applies to injuries to subcontractor employees. | Immunity applies when coverage is secured for subcontractor employees. |
| Impact of Ocean Reef Club decision | Ocean Reef estoppel could apply to VMS. | Ocean Reef is distinguishable; it did not involve contractors/subcontractors. | Ocean Reef does not control VMS’s immunity here. |
| Final effect on Alfonso’s negligence claim | Alfonso can pursue negligence against VMS. | VMS is immune if coverage was secured. | VMS is immune; summary judgment reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. United Steel Works, Inc., 606 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (section 440.11(1) exclusive liability)
- Mena v. J.I.L. Constr. Group Corp., 79 So. 3d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (secure payment adequacy suffices for immunity)
- Limerock Indus., Inc. v. Pridgeon, 743 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (employer secures coverage; immunity)
- Motchkavitz v. L.C. Boggs Indus., Inc., 407 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1981) (liability to secure coverage immunizes contractor)
- Adams Homes of Nw. Fla., Inc. v. Cranfill, 7 So. 3d 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (where contractor secures coverage, immune)
- Ocean Reef Club, Inc. v. Wilczewski, 99 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (distinguishable; not controlling here)
- Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Barker, 886 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (contractor immune when coverage secured)
- Candyworld, Inc. v. Granite State Ins. Co., 652 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (coverage governance under statutory framework)