The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a district court's decision that a commercial general liability insurance policy did not cover injuries sustained by a worker in the course of his job but, rather, that the worker's injuries fell under Florida's workers' compensation law.
The Case
After United Construction Engineering, Inc. ("UCE") contracted to repair a roof on a Miami warehouse, it hired Enzo Enrique Moreno Castellanos (the "subcontractor"), who in turn hired Carlos Marroquin Lopez to perform the work.
Mr. Lopez estimated that the repair would take at least a week and accepted a rate of $120 per day from the subcontractor.
On the second day of the project, Mr. Lopez slipped and fell into a pool of hot tar on the job site.
Neither UCE nor the subcontractor was carrying workers' compensation insurance at that time.
After Mr. Lopez sued UCE in a Florida state court for his injuries, Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company, which had issued a commercial general liability insurance policy to UCE, began defending UCE under a reservation of rights.
Endurance then filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify UCE in the state suit. Among other things, Endurance asserted that Mr. Lopez's suit should be covered by workers' compensation.
The district court found that, under Florida law, workers' compensation was "the exclusive remedy available to an injured employee for the negligence of [the employee's] employer" under these circumstances, and that Mr. Lopez was a statutory employee under the terms of the Florida workers' compensation statute.
Mr. Lopez appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit's Decision
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
In its decision, the circuit court explained that the applicability of the workers' compensation exclusion in the Endurance policy hinged on whether Mr. Lopez was covered by Florida's workers' compensation laws. It then ruled that he was covered under the provision of the law defining "employee" for workers' compensation eligibility as "any person who receives remuneration from an employer for the performance of any work or service."
The circuit court said that the "clear and unambiguous language" of the workers' compensation exclusion in the Endurance policy meant what it said: that the insured's obligations arising out of a workers' compensation law were not covered under the policy.
This exclusion, the Eleventh Circuit concluded, did "not hinge on any distinctions between statutory employees, temporary workers, or casual workers."
The case is Endurance American Specialty Ins. Co. v. United Construction Engineering, Inc., No. 18-14841 (11th Cir. Sep. 6, 2019).
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].