Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 440.11 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 440.11 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 440.11

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXI
LABOR
Chapter 440
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 440.11
440.11 Exclusiveness of liability.
(1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee, the legal representative thereof, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death, except as follows:
(a) If an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee, or the legal representative thereof in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this chapter or to maintain an action at law or in admiralty for damages on account of such injury or death. In such action the defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by negligence of a fellow employee, that the employee assumed the risk of the employment, or that the injury was due to the comparative negligence of the employee.
(b) When an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee. For purposes of this paragraph, an employer’s actions shall be deemed to constitute an intentional tort and not an accident only when the employee proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that:
1. The employer deliberately intended to injure the employee; or
2. The employer engaged in conduct that the employer knew, based on prior similar accidents or on explicit warnings specifically identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee, and the employee was not aware of the risk because the danger was not apparent and the employer deliberately concealed or misrepresented the danger so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work.

The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer shall extend as well to each employee of the employer when such employee is acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and the injured employee is entitled to receive benefits under this chapter. Such fellow-employee immunities shall not be applicable to an employee who acts, with respect to a fellow employee, with willful and wanton disregard or unprovoked physical aggression or with gross negligence when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death, nor shall such immunities be applicable to employees of the same employer when each is operating in the furtherance of the employer’s business but they are assigned primarily to unrelated works within private or public employment. The same immunity provisions enjoyed by an employer shall also apply to any sole proprietor, partner, corporate officer or director, supervisor, or other person who in the course and scope of his or her duties acts in a managerial or policymaking capacity and the conduct which caused the alleged injury arose within the course and scope of said managerial or policymaking duties and was not a violation of a law, whether or not a violation was charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days’ imprisonment as set forth in s. 775.082. The immunity from liability provided in this subsection extends to county governments with respect to employees of county constitutional officers whose offices are funded by the board of county commissioners.

(2) The immunity from liability described in subsection (1) shall extend to an employer and to each employee of the employer which uses the services of the employees of a help supply services company, as set forth in North American Industrial Classification System Codes 561320 and 561330, when such employees, whether management or staff, are acting in furtherance of the employer’s business. An employee so engaged by the employer shall be considered a borrowed employee of the employer and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer. The employer shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to all such borrowed employees as required in s. 440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help supply services company.
(3) An employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, service agent, or safety consultant shall not be liable as a third-party tortfeasor to employees of the employer or employees of its subcontractors for assisting the employer and its subcontractors, if any, in carrying out the employer’s rights and responsibilities under this chapter by furnishing any safety inspection, safety consultative service, or other safety service incidental to the workers’ compensation or employers’ liability coverage or to the workers’ compensation or employer’s liability servicing contract. Without limitation, a safety consultant may include an owner, as defined in chapter 713, or an owner’s related, affiliated, or subsidiary companies and the employees of each. The exclusion from liability under this subsection shall not apply in any case in which injury or death is proximately caused by the willful and unprovoked physical aggression, or by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, by employees, officers, or directors of the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier, service agent, or safety consultant.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 624.155, the liability of a carrier to an employee or to anyone entitled to bring suit in the name of the employee shall be as provided in this chapter, which shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability.
History.s. 11, ch. 17481, 1935; CGL 1936 Supp. 5966(11); s. 1, ch. 70-25; s. 1, ch. 71-190; s. 4, ch. 75-209; ss. 2, 23, ch. 78-300; ss. 6, 124, ch. 79-40; s. 21, ch. 79-312; s. 3, ch. 83-305; s. 1, ch. 88-284; ss. 8, 43, ch. 89-289; ss. 16, 56, ch. 90-201; ss. 14, 52, ch. 91-1; s. 16, ch. 93-415; s. 108, ch. 97-103; s. 14, ch. 2003-412; s. 5, ch. 2013-141.

F.S. 440.11 on Google Scholar

F.S. 440.11 on Casetext

Amendments to 440.11


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 440.11
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 440.11.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

SEDGWICK CMS CMS, v. VALCOURT- WILLIAMS,, 271 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. . . . immunity because the employee is entitled to benefits would be to render this statutory provision [ § 440.11 . . . Those fellow employees are currently immune from suit for negligence under section 440.11(1), Florida . . .

KING, v. STARKS, d b a, 262 So. 3d 705 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . See § 440.11, Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110. . . .

LAFRENIERE, v. CRAIG- MYERS,, 264 So. 3d 232 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . From Criminal Acts Exception to Worker's Compensation Employer/Manager Immunity Provided in Section 440.11 . . . From Criminal Acts Exception to Workers' Compensation Employer/Manager Immunity provided in Section 440.11 . . . Section 440.11(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy in . . . See § 440.11(1)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . However, section 440.11(1)(b) does not declare that criminal conduct by a corporate officer constitutes . . .

MAXUM INDEMNITY COMPANY, a v. GENERATION PLUMBING, INC., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2018)

. . . immunity under the intentional tort exception of the Florida Workers' Compensation Act set forth at § 440.11 . . . course of his managerial and policy-making duties undertaken on behalf of the corporation pursuant to § 440.11 . . . maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days' imprisonment as set forth in s. 775.082. § 440.11 . . . Sanchez's death and thereby forfeited workers' compensation immunity under operation of § 440.11(1)(b . . . Under Section 440.11(b)(2), Fla. . . .

M. RAMSEY Jr. III, v. DEWITT EXCAVATING, INC. E. Sr., 248 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . However, section 440.11(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes (2013) creates an exception to workers' compensation . . . The statute reads, in relevant part, as follows: 440.11 Exclusiveness of liability.- (1) The liability . . . when such acts result in injury or death or such acts proximately cause such injury or death .... § 440.11 . . .

MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, v. POZOS,, 242 So. 3d 540 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . 542 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (stating that "the exclusivity provision set forth in section 440.11 . . .

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, v. CALONGE,, 246 So. 3d 447 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

. . . 542 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (stating that "the exclusivity provision set forth in section 440.11 . . .

GLADDEN, v. FISHER THOMAS, INC. v., 232 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . . § 440.11(1), Fla. . . . The question is whether Appellees qualify for tort immunity under section 440.11. . . . Weber defended against the action based on the immunity provisions in section 440.11, Florida Statutes . . . compensation coverage does not equate to his ability to circumvent the immunity protections of section 440.11 . . .

PAYNE, v. J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., 709 F. App'x 647 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 440.11. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Payne was a delivery driver for J.B. Hunt. . . . Stat. § 440.11. Payne responded that J.B. Hunt was es-topped from raising this defense. . . . Stat. § 440.11. . . .

MORERA, v. WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA, a a a GL a, 218 So. 3d 449 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . because the record conclusively shows that Waste Management was immune from liability pursuant to section 440.11 . . . Standard Industry Code Industry Number 7363 is incorporated through section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes . . . employer, and, for the purposes of this section, shall be treated as any other employee of the employer. § 440.11 . . .

IN RE MILLS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v., 570 B.R. 169 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2017)

. . . . § 1-440.11 permits the amendment of an affidavit for attachment at any time before judgment is entered . . . Stat. § l-440.11(c) (1947). Compliance with Rule 65 in Obtaining the TRO 60. . . .

LETT, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 233 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2017)

. . . See §§ 440.09(1); 440.11, Fla. Stat. . . . See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). . . .

WOOD, v. CLEAN FUELS OF INDIANA, INC., 214 F. Supp. 3d 1265 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . . § 440.11. . . . Stat. § 440.11(l)(a). . . . Stat. § 440.11(l)(a). . . .

WERT a FCCI Co. v. CAMACHO, 200 So. 3d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . asserted by the [defendants is subject to the unrelated works exception contained within [section] 440.11 . . . “[S]ection 440.11(1) provides that this liability is ‘exclusive and in place of all other liability’ . . . (quoting § 440.11(1)). This exception is known as the unrelated works exception. . . . contractor on such contract work and is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 . . . that because they are not employees of the same employer, the unrelated works exception in section 440.11 . . .

WESTPHAL, v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, St. v., 194 So. 3d 311 (Fla. 2016)

. . . law, Chapter 440, effective October 1, 2003[,] is facially unconstitutional as long as it contains § 440.11 . . .

D. MATHIS, v. SACRED HEART HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., 187 So. 3d 951 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . erred in its determination that workers’ compensation immunity applies to Sacred Heart under section 440.11 . . . ground that Sacred Heart, as Mathis’ statutory employer, was immune from civil liability under section 440.11 . . . Whether the workers’ compensation immunity of section 440.11(1) applies to Sacred Heart depends on whether . . . subcontracted such work to Coverall, then it is entitled to the worker’s compensation immunity of section 440.11 . . .

PAYNE, v. J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., 154 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (M.D. Fla. 2016)

. . . Plaintiff contends that his claim “arises under” Florida Statutes § 440.06 and § 440.11(1). . . . Similarly, Florida Statute § 440.11(l)(a) provides, The liability of an employer ... shall be exclusive . . . Stat..§ 440.11(l)(a). . . . The exclusivity of the FWCL is subject to two narrow exceptions enumerated by Florida Statute § 440.11 . . . Stat. § 440.11(1)(a)-(b). . . .

FERNANDEZ, v. FLORIDA A G CO. f k a Co. a LLC, a, 177 So. 3d 647 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Arch and Active Staffing under the exception to worker’s compensation immunity located . in section 440.11 . . .

MORADIELLOS, v. GERELCO TRAFFIC CONTROLS, INC., 176 So. 3d 329 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . . § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . negligence, or (2) the employee and the injured employee “are assigned primarily to unrelated works.” 440.11 . . . Compare § 440.10(e) with § 440.11(1). . . . Accordingly, we hold that the current versions of sections 440.02(15)(c), 440.10(e), and 440.11, when . . . (amending § 440.11(1)). . . .

SLORA, v. SUN N FUN FLY- IN, INC., 173 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . See §§ 440.10(l)(b), 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . is made “exclusive and in place of all other liability ... of such employer ... to the employee.” § 440.11 . . .

MORADIELLOS, v. COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORPORATION, INC., 170 So. 3d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Estate filed suit against the Contractor under the exception for intentional torts found in section 440.11 . . .

STATE v. FLORIDA WORKERS ADVOCATES,, 167 So. 3d 500 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . The State of Florida appeals a final summary judgment determining that section 440.11, Florida Statutes . . . a procedurally proper vehicle for the trial court’s assessment of the. constitutionality of section 440.11 . . . To this point, no party had raised an issue relating to the constitutionality of section 440.11. . . . allegations and an additional (fourth) count seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 440.09 and 440.11 . . . It therefore cannot be the exclusive remedy. § 440.11 is constitutionally infirm and invalid.” . . .

MORADIELLOS, v. COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORPORATION, INC., 183 So. 3d 1095 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . Estate filed suit against the Contractor under the exception for intentional torts found in section 440.11 . . .

LACHE, v. BAL HARBOUR HOTEL, LLC d b a St. d b a St., 104 F. Supp. 3d 1379 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 440.11(1). . . .

MORALES, v. ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY,, 152 So. 3d 557 (Fla. 2014)

. . . See generally § 440.11(1), Fla. . . . See generally § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. . . . workers’ compensation exclusion as follows: because “[t]he ‘employer’s liability’ is pursuant to section 440.11 . . . to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death.” § 440.11 . . .

S. LANE, v. WORKFORCE BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. f k a, 151 So. 3d 537 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . . § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2011). . . .

BAKER, v. AIRGUIDE MANUFACTURING, LLC,, 151 So. 3d 38 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Because we find the trial court correctly found that Airguide was entitled to immunity under section 440.11 . . . under common law doctrine or was an employee of a help supply services company as provided in section 440.11 . . . Because Airguide is clearly a help supply services company under section 440.11(2), we affirm the trial . . . In addition to the common law “borrowed servant” doctrine, section 440.11(2) of the Florida Statutes . . . Subsection 440.11(2) also incorporates NAICS Code 561330. . . .

VMS, INC. a k a VMS v. ALFONSO,, 147 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Because section 440.11(1) of the Florida Statutes makes the liability to secure compensation imposed . . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2013); Walker v. . . . Section 440.11 provides that the liability established in section 440.11 is “exclusive.” . . . The exclusiveness of liability provided for by section 440.11 extends to an employer’s “liability” as . . . Stat. (2013); § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .

R. L. HAINES CONSTRUCTION, LLC. v. SANTAMARIA,, 161 So. 3d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . As a result of Turner, the Legislature amended the exception language by enacting section 440.11(1)(b . . . After the court found that the section 440.11(l)(b)2. exception applied, the jury awarded the plaintiff . . . The employee sued the employer, asserting the section 440.11(1)(b)2. exception to workers’ compensation . . . The standard set forth in section 440.11(l)(b)2. requires events to be viewed retrospectively in order . . . Haines's contentions that Appellees failed to establish the other elements required by section 440.11 . . . .”§ 440.11(l)(b)2., Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. . . .

ARVIZU, HEIGHTS ROOFING, INC. J., 146 So. 3d 1223 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . insufficient evidence that his supervisors acted with culpable negligence within the meaning of section 440.11 . . .

PENA, v. DESIGN- BUILD INTERAMERICAN, INC., 132 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . of material fact, and that Defendants were entitled to worker’s compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . . Under section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2008): The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 . . . be entitled to immunity under either scenario unless one of the few exceptions, provided in section 440.11 . . . See also, § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . As an officer of both companies, he would be entitled to immunity under section 440.11(1) (absent any . . .

SUAREZ, v. TRANSMONTAIGNE SERVICES, INC., 127 So. 3d 845 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). . . .

PICON, v. GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC. a, 548 F. App'x 561 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 440.11(1). . . .

FIGUEROA, v. DELANT CONSTRUCTION CO., 118 So. 3d 272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . brought under the intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation immunity as set forth in section 440.11 . . . on workers’ compensation immunity, noting that the intentional tort exception set forth in section 440.11 . . . stringent” virtual certainty standard required to overcome an employer’s statutory immunity under section 440.11 . . .

TSAFATINOS, TAF v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF FLORIDA, INC. C. D., 116 So. 3d 576 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . In Sunspan, the Florida Supreme Court held that section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, the exclusive remedy . . . party’s claim for common law indemnification against a negligent employer is not barred by section 440.11 . . . Further, section 440.11(1) is also unconstitutional to the extent that it functions to immunize an employer . . . contractor; rather, the subcontractor is protected by the exclusive liability provisions of section 440.11 . . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . .

VALLEJOS, v. LAN CARGO S. A., 116 So. 3d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . . § 440.11). . . . The “gross negligence” and “unrelated works” exceptions found in section 440.11(l)(b)(2) are inapplicable . . . Stat. § 440.11(1)(b)(2) (excluding from immunity supervisors who are grossly negligent in the course . . . Mattheus, 529 So.2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), another case that dealt with section 440.11(1)(b)(2), the . . . Stat. § 440.11(1)(b). . . .

WOOD, v. SOUTHERN CRANE SERVICE, INC. a, 117 So. 3d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . the same project or contract work ... is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 . . .

PYJEK, v. VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT, INC. a d b a, 116 So. 3d 475 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See § 440.10(1)(e)(2); see also § 440.11(1)(b)(2). To establish gross negligence, Mr. . . . employees of another subcontractor ... and is protected by the exclusiveness of liability provisions of s. 440.11 . . .

BOSTON, ESTATE OF L. JACKSON, Sr. v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., 112 So. 3d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . We agree that Publix, the employer, is entitled to immunity under section 440.11 because the employer . . . to overcome the workers’ compensation immunity afforded Publix under the 2003 amendments to Section 440.11 . . . Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, provides the limitations on immunity for employers: The liability of . . . so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11 . . . Section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, provides: The same immunities from liability enjoyed by an employer . . .

FERNANDEZ, v. SANDY LANE RESIDENTIAL, LLC,, 112 So. 3d 610 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . (“SLMA”), and both asserted they were entitled to employer immunity under section 440.11,- Florida Statutes . . . both SLMA and Sandy Lane Residential were entitled to worker’s compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . .

MORALES, Jr. SM RM, III v. ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY,, 714 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 440.11(1)); see also Ruiz v. Aerorep Grp. . . . Stat. § 440.11(l)(b)(l); or (2) the employer’s conduct is “substantially certain” to injure the employee . . . Stat. § 440.11(l)(b)(2). . . .

W. FELDER, v. KING MOTOR COMPANY OF SOUTH FLORIDA d b a, 110 So. 3d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . immunity from this suit under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act, and this action is barred by Section 440.11 . . . Finally, the first line of section 440.11(1), Florida Statutes (2006), states: The liability of an employer . . .

VILLALTA, v. CORNN INTERNATIONAL, INC. a L W a a d b a, 109 So. 3d 278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), immunity was properly claimed under section 440.10(1), rather than section 440.11 . . .

VILLALTA, v. CORNN INTERNATIONAL, INC. a L W a a d b a, 110 So. 3d 952 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . that to avoid the statutory immunity from suit provided in the Workers’ Compensation Law at section 440.11 . . . 440.10(1), Florida Statutes, and was thus entitled to the immunity from civil suit granted by section 440.11 . . . See § 440.11(l)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . Tenbroeck, 399 So.2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and upon which section 440.11(1) immunity applies, and the . . . (1), with the section 440.11(l)(b) intentional tort exception. . . .

LIST INDUSTRIES, INC. v. DALIEN, a, 107 So. 3d 470 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . The accident occurred on August 23, 2005, and is controlled by section 440.11(l)(b)(2), Florida Statutes . . . failed to present “clear and convincing evidence” of each of the three indispensible elements in Section 440.11 . . . PCR, Inc., 754 So.2d 683 (Fla.2000), when it amended Section 440.11 to codify the “intentional tort exception . . . so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11 . . . A civil personal injury lawsuit by an employee against an employer under section 440.11 was intended . . .

GORHAM, v. ZACHRY INDUSTRIAL, INC., 105 So. 3d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . issues of fact remained as to whether he met the exception for employer immunity set forth in section 440.11 . . . disputed issues of material fact on the question of whether it was entitled to immunity under section 440.11 . . . Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, provides for immunity of an employer from personal injury suits for . . . so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11 . . . identifying a known danger, was virtually certain to result in injury or death to the employee.” § 440.11 . . .

CATLIN SYNDICATE v. L. RINKUS,, 43 F. Supp. 3d 1255 (S.D. Fla. 2012)

. . . . § 440.11(1) (providing that workers’ compensation is generally an employee’s exclusive remedy to recover . . . Stat. § 440.11(b). . . .

OCEAN REEF CLUB, INC. a v. WILCZEWSKI, 99 So. 3d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . nonfinal order denying an employer, Ocean Reef Club, Inc., the benefit of immunity from suit under section 440.11 . . . again with some modest exceptions typically centered around injuries caused by an intentional tort. § 440.11 . . . Florida's Worker’s Compensation Law because of the appearance of the rarely used option found in section 440.11 . . . See § 440.11(1 )(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . See § 440.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). We disagree based on the facts of these cases. . . .

EBEH, v. ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Dr. P. A. LLC,, 459 F. App'x 862 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 440.11, provides the exclusive legal remedy for on-the-job injuries suffered by workers in Florida . . . Stat. § 440.11(1), (4). . . .

MENA, v. J. I. L. CONSTRUCTION GROUP CORP. a a C. C. R. C. a, 79 So. 3d 219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . Plaintiffs claim is barred as a result of workers’ compensation immunity pursuant to Florida Statute 440.11 . . . Mena moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that under section 440.11(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2008 . . . it should be estopped from claiming it is entitled to worker’s compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . . Section 440.11, Florida Statutes, provides that a defendant “may not plead” these defenses in an employee . . . ’s action at law following his or her employer’s failure to secure payment of compensation. § 440.11( . . .

PENSACOLA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE v. BRUHN,, 80 So. 3d 1046 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2006); Jones v. Martin Elecs., Inc., 932 So.2d 1100, 1104 (Fla.2006). . . .

LOVERING, v. C. NICKERSON, 72 So. 3d 780 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . Combined application of sections 440.10 and 440.11 of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act operates to . . . Section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes meanwhile provides that, in exchange for the contractor’s statutory . . . , the contractor receives immunity from negligence liability for injuries suffered by any employee: 440.11 . . . recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death ... § 440.11 . . .

CORAL v. GARRARD CRANE SERVICE, INC. a a, 62 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . either the common law borrowed servant doctrine or statutory special employment, pursuant to section 440.11 . . .

FOSSETT, v. SOUTHEAST TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, LLC., 60 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . The trial court ruled that SET had immunity from suit under section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (2006 . . . Fos-sett and other temporary employees to work for SET, SET was immune under section 440.11(2) from liability . . . Section 440.11 provides, in relevant part: (1) The liability [for workers’ compensation benefits] of . . . On the date section 440.11(2) took effect— October 1, 1989, see ch. 89-289, § 8, at 1749-50, 1786, Laws . . . The “general supervision” section 440.11(2) contemplates, in incorporating OSHA Standard Industry Code . . .

PUNSKY, v. CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 60 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. . . .

GERBER, v. VINCENT S MEN S HAIRSTYLING, INC., 57 So. 3d 935 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . sufficient facts to establish common law tort claims, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act, §§ 440.015 and 440.11 . . . Section - 440.11 states that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy “in place of all other liability . . . See § 440.11(b). . . . See § 440.11(b)l and 2. . . . See § 440.11(b). . . .

TOTAL SIGNS LIGHTING, INC. v. BARRIOS,, 59 So. 3d 1170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . appellee-employee for injuries in a construction accident as a matter of law, see sections 440.02(15)(c)(3); 440.11 . . .

J. BEND, Jr. v. SHAMROCK SERVICES, 59 So. 3d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . proclamation that the liability of a carrier to an employee shall be “as provided” by chapter 440 (see section 440.11 . . . Cf. § 440.11(4), Fla. . . .

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, v. BROTTEM,, 53 So. 3d 334 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . .” § 440.11(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . [for an employee’s] injury or death.” § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . Apparent Conflict Between the Act and the WQAA Sections 873.313(3) and 440.11(1), Florida Statutes, appear . . . Section 440.11(1) makes workers’ compensation the “exclusive” remedy for an employee’s injuries, “in . . . Thus, section 440.11(1) would afford General Dynamics workers’ compensation immunity from Plaintiffs’ . . .

RANCE, v. D. R. HORTON, INC. CNA, 392 F. App'x 749 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 440.11(1) and (4). . . .

INTERNATIONAL SHIP REPAIR AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. a J. v. ALEMAN,, 38 So. 3d 821 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . . § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1990). . . .

HUNT, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,, 38 So. 3d 173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . court rejected appellants’ argument that the intentional tort exception to employer immunity, section 440.11 . . . Section 440.10 sets forth the employer’s liability for compensation, and section 440.11(1) provides that . . . Section 440.11(l)(b), sets forth the so-called intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation immunity . . . Court has explained the exception, as follows: The immunity afforded to the employer under section 440.11 . . . Miami-Dade County, 928 So.2d 1163, 1167 (Fla.2006)(italics removed) (quoting § 440.11(1), Fla. . . .

RAMCHARITAR, v. DEROSINS a, 35 So. 3d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . Derosins its employee, were immune from tort liability under the 2001 version of sections 440.10(1) and 440.11 . . . See §§ 440.10(1) and 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2001). Summary judgment was granted. . . . contractor on such contract work and is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 . . . 2003-412 of the Laws of Florida set an effective date of October 1, 2003 for an amendment to section 440.11 . . . Section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes (2001) provides, in relevant part: The liability of an employer . . .

ESTATE OF M. SMITH, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 34 So. 3d 181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . The allegations closely tracked the language in section 440.11(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), which . . . so as to prevent the employee from exercising informed judgment about whether to perform the work. § 440.11 . . . There, we stated that even if, as provided by section 440.11(l)(b), a complaint alleges conduct by a . . . Unfortunately, this ease, like Dugger, is one in which the provisions of sections 440.11(1) and 768.28 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. In No. In No. In No. In No. s In No. In No. In No. In No., 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010)

. . . See § 440.11(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009). . . . See F.S. 440.11 (2003) (codifying intentional tort exception to workers’ compensation immunity and modifying . . .

CATALFUMO CONSTRUCTION, LLC d b a v. VARELLA,, 28 So. 3d 963 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . the finding of the trial court upon the holding that Catalfumo is a statutory employer under section 440.11 . . . We find that Catalfumo is a statutory employer as defined in section 440.11, Florida Statutes (2005), . . .

COASTAL MASONRY, INC. a v. GUTIERREZ,, 30 So. 3d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. Slat. (2006); Cabrera v. T.J. . . .

J. SINNI, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 676 F. Supp. 2d 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 440.11 (an employer’s liability to an employee “shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability . . .

PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, L. P. v. GALL,, 23 So. 3d 849 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . subject to the exclusive liability provisions of Florida’s workers’ compensation statutes, section 440.11 . . . See § 440.11(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). . . . summary judgment, contending that it was entitled to immunity from Gall’s tort suit pursuant to section 440.11 . . .

XL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC. a v. ORTIZ, d b a a a, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . . § 440.11(1). Schratter Foods argues that through the Ortiz v. . . . Stat. § 440.11(1). . . . tortfeasor-employee would not be an insured because his acts, if they fit into the categories described in § 440.11 . . .

SANCHEZ, Sr. v. BRINK S INCORPORATED,, 19 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See §§ 440.10(l)(b), 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2004); Dunlap v. . . .

SCHROEDER v. PEOPLEASE CORPORATION L S, 18 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . The trial court granted summary judgment based upon workers’ compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . . See § 440.11(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . was not estopped from asserting immunity from suit pursuant to the exclusivity provision of section 440.11 . . . Section 440.11(1) provides: (1) The liability of an employer prescribed in s. 440.10 shall be exclusive . . .

ZEIGER CRANE RENTALS, INC. v. DOUBLE A INDUSTRIES, INC. a P. F. a, 16 So. 3d 907 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . See, e.g., § 440.11(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007) (the intentional tort exception). . . . contractor on such contract work and is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 . . . of proof, then the Appellants are protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provision in section 440.11 . . . giving same-project subcontractors protection under the exclusiveness-of-liability provision in section 440.11 . . . Smith, 359 So.2d 427 (Fla.1978), the Florida Supreme Court held that section 440.11, Florida Statutes . . .

CENTRAL FLORIDA LUMBER UNLIMITED, INC. v. I. QAQISH, L. a T. d b a TGF a a a, 12 So. 3d 766 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . .” § 440.11(1). . . . both the contractor and the subcontractor are entitled to workers’ compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . . Doug Ross and Central Florida Lumber would be entitled to workers’ compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . . cannot be applied to void the contract so as to preclude workers’ compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . . cannot be applied to void the contract so as to preclude workers’ compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . .

C. W. ROBERTS CONTRACTING, INC. v. CUCHENS,, 10 So. 3d 667 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . therefore immune from all other liability on account of the employee’s injury or death under section 440.11 . . . Under section 440.11(l)(b), the employer’s actions “shall be deemed to constitute an intentional tort . . . an action against the employer for conduct rising to the level of an intentional tort under section 440.11 . . . where the accident occurred was “virtually certain to cause injury or death” as required by section 440.11 . . . and that the complaint did not sufficiently allege an “intentional tort” as contemplated by section 440.11 . . .

SALEEBY, v. ROCKY ELSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009)

. . . Saleeby’s case turned on whether Elson was immune from tort liability as an employer pursuant to section 440.11 . . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). . . .

INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, v. WILLIAMS, v., 998 So. 2d 677 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Shova, 630 So.2d 537, 539 (Fla.1993) (citing § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat.); see also Ruiz v. . . . either pursuing workers' compensation claims directly against Williams, or suing Williams in tort. § 440.11 . . .

CASAS, v. SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION, INC., 1 So. 3d 294 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . (quoting § 440.11(1 )(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (2003)). . . .

ZEEUW, v. BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., 997 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 440.11(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . See § 440.11. . . .

AMORIN v. GORDON, A. C A a, 996 So. 2d 913 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . contractor on such contract work and is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of s. 440.11 . . . See §§ 440.10(l)(a) & 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2004). . . .

CABRERA, v. T. J. PAVEMENT CORP., 2 So. 3d 996 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 440.11(1) Fla. . . . Stat. (2002) (excepting from immunity two groups of individuals immunized by section 440.11(1) along . . . Pavement correctly argues, is the criminal acts exception recognized in section 440.11(1) of the Florida . . . Statutes. § 440.11(1), Fla. . . . We employ the "substantial certainty” standard because Acosta was killed in July 2003 before section 440.11 . . .

ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC. v. SALDANA, a a, 992 So. 2d 419 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . denying its motion for summary judgment, wherein it argued workers’ compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . . Arden thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment asserting immunity under section 440.11(1), which . . . When an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee.... § 440.11 . . . Although it appears that neither Belance nor section 440.11(3), Florida Statutes (2004) applies here, . . . Thus, Holdings’ reliance on section 440.11(3) is misplaced as section 440.11(3) does not grant immunity . . .

SANDERS, v. CITY OF ORLANDO,, 997 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 440.11(l)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2001) (emphasis supplied). . . . constitute an explicit exception, it would have been explicit and most probably included under section 440.11 . . .

COCA- COLA ENTERPRISES, INC. v. J. MONTIEL N, 985 So. 2d 19 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. . . . See § 440.11(1)(b). Mr. Montiel sued for simple negligence. . . .

DOE v. FOOTSTAR CORPORATION, a f k a a k a a f k a a k a USA, a f k a a k a f k a a k a f k a a k a f k a a k a, 980 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2000). . . .

GRIFFIN, INC. f u b o v. LOOMIS, FARGO COMPANY,, 979 So. 2d 416 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. . . . Smith, 359 So.2d 427, 429-30 (Fla.1978) (upholding constitutionality of section 440.11(1) and holding . . . employer has paid workers’ compensation benefits for accident and is immune from suit under section 440.11 . . .

CRUM SERVICES v. LOPEZ,, 975 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . For example, section 440.11(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), allows Claimant to bring a claim against . . .

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. J. WEIR, D. C. M. D. M. D. P. C., 531 F. Supp. 2d 674 (E.D.N.C. 2008)

. . . . § l-440.11(b). A. . . . Id. § 1 — 440.11(a)(2)(b), (b). . . . Gen.Stat. § l-440.11(a), (b). . . . Gen.Stat. § 1-440.11(a). . . . See id. § l-440.11(a)(l), (b). . . .

GAYER, v. FINE LINE CONSTRUCTION ELECTRIC, INC. L. F. I., 970 So. 2d 424 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Subsection (2) of section 440.11, “Exclusiveness of Liability,” Florida Statutes, provides in relevant . . . For the purposes of section 440.11, “any other employee” of the employer is not subject to an employer . . . See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. . . . In sum, section 440.11(2) “creates a rebuttable presumption that a special employer using the services . . . (citing § 440.11(2), Fla. Stat.)). . . .

PEREZ, v. LA DOVE, INC., 964 So. 2d 777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Section 440.11 of the Florida Statutes (2001), entitled “Exclusiveness of liability,” provides general . . . immunity, including situations where the employer “fails to secure payment as required by this chapter,” § 440.11 . . . “[w]hen an employer commits an intentional tort that causes the injury or death of the employee,” § 440.11 . . . charged, for which the maximum penalty which may be imposed does not exceed 60 days’ imprisonment ....”§ 440.11 . . . implied end runs around the legislatively authorized exceptions to employer immunity found in section 440.11 . . .

SALEEBY, v. ROCKY ELSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., 965 So. 2d 211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Orr, 889 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); see § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2000). . . . .” § 440.11(2). . . . However, section 440.11(2) does not require this level of precision. . . . .” § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2002). . . . See Feraci, 315 F.Supp.2d at 1205 n. 11 (citing § 440.11 (l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003)). . . .

TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, v. KENT,, 966 So. 2d 978 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . affirmative defense of immunity on the ground that TSC is now estopped from asserting immunity under sections 440.11 . . . The employer raised as an affirmative defense the exclusivity provision contained in section 440.11, . . .

C. GREATHOUSE, v. CECO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION LLC, d b a ACR LLC, d b a, 232 F. App'x 957 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . . §§ 440.10(l)(e), 440.11. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ceco. . . .

R. UFER, Sr. v. STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES,, 961 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . insured, who was statutorily immune from suit under the Workers’ Compensation Law, sections 440.01 and 440.11 . . . plaintiffs wrongful death claim against the insured was barred by the workers’ compensation statute, section 440.11 . . .

BAKERMAN, v. THE BOMBAY COMPANY, INC., 961 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2007)

. . . application because in 2003 the Legislature superseded this Court’s opinion in Turner with section 440.11 . . . Section 440.11(1)(b) codified the intentional tort exception to the-workers’ compensation immunity doctrine . . . See § 440.11, Fla. Stat. (2006). . . .

ST. LUCIE FALLS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, v. MORELLI,, 956 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . remaining as to whether the Association is entitled to workers’ compensation immunity under section 440.11 . . . Section 440.11(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that workers’ compensation immunity: shall extend . . . The trial court reasoned that section 440.11(2) would not apply to the Association because Advantage . . . However, we disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that section 440.11(2) could not, as a matter . . . Unpacking the standard in section 440.11(2), the employer must 1) utilize the services, 2) of an employee . . .

LOCKE, f. k. a. v. SUNTRUST BANK,, 484 F.3d 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 440.11. This is sometimes known as the workers’ compensation exclusivity bar. See Fla. . . .

A. OSTUNI, v. MEINEKE DISCOUNT MUFFLER SHOPS, INC. a R. Sr. R. Jr. a d b a B. K. a, 948 So. 2d 848 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . other person[s]” who acted in a “managerial or policymaking capacity” within the meaning of section 440.11 . . . Fla.1982), but we find that case to be inapplicable because it predates the 1988 revision of section 440.11 . . .

HAZEALEFERIOU, v. LABOR READY ESIS, 947 So. 2d 599 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Florida, the doctrine’s specific application to employee leasing arrangements is embodied in section 440.11 . . . required in § 440.10, except when such payment has been secured by the help supply services company. § 440.11 . . . The seeming disparity between section 440.11(2) (conferring special employer status to companies borrowing . . . In addition, the court held that Maxson was immune from tort liability under section 440.11(2), because . . .

GUEVARA, v. DOORMARK, INC., 946 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . . § 440.11(l)(b)(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). In Pendergrass v. R.D. . . .