A Florida appeals court on Wednesday reversed a summary judgment that had barred an injured worker’s negligence claim, finding a property manager was not entitled to workers compensation immunity.
In Teed v. Everest Campus East LLC, the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal held that the trial court misapplied the law in concluding the defendant qualified for “horizontal immunity” under the state’s workers compensation statute.
Jackie Teed was injured while servicing a pool at an apartment complex in Tampa. He worked for Bay Guard Pool Services, which had a contract with the property owner to maintain the pool. Mr. Teed received workers compensation benefits through his employer and later filed a negligence lawsuit against Everest Campus East, the property manager.
Mr. Teed alleged Everest failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and did not warn of a dangerous condition that led to his injuries.
Everest argued it was immune from suit under Florida law, which provides liability protection to subcontractors working on the same project, so long as certain conditions are met.
The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, finding Everest and Bay Guard were subcontractors working for the same contractor.
The appeals court disagreed, emphasizing that such immunity applies only when subcontractors are working for a “contractor” that has a primary contractual obligation to a third party.
The court found no evidence that the property owner had such an obligation that it delegated to Everest or Bay Guard. Instead, the record showed only separate contracts between the owner and each company, which did not establish the required contractor-subcontractor relationship.
Because Everest was not a subcontractor under the statute, it was not entitled to immunity, the court said.
The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings.
