 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. PCR Incorporated12/9/2004
In Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2000), we reaffirmed the existence of an intentional-tort exception to the otherwise exclusive nature of the statutory remedy provided by the Workers' Compensation Law. Under the intentional-tort exception, an injured employee can avoid the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law and sue his employer in tort if his workplace injury was caused by an intentional tort committed against him by his employer. We held in Turner that an injured employee could satisfy the intentional-tort exception either by demonstrating that his employer actually intended to injure him or by demonstrating that his employer engaged in conduct that was objectively substantially certain to result in injury.
The question presented in this case, by way of two questions of Florida law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, is whether an employer's liability insurance policy that provides coverage for liability arising from work-related accidental injuries, but excludes from coverage liability arising from injuries intentionally caused by the employer, provides coverage for a tort claim brought under the objectively-substantially-certain prong of the Workers' Compensation Law'sintentional-tort exception. We answer this question in the affirmative. Furthermore, we hold that such insurance coverage does not offend, and is not prohibited by, public policy.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a 1991 explosion at PCR's chemical plant that killed Paul Turner and seriously injured James Creighton, both of whom were employed by PCR as chemical technicians. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. PCR, Inc., 326 F.3d 1190, 1191 (11th Cir. 2003); Turner v. PCR, Inc., 754 So. 2d 683, 684-86 (Fla. 2000) (describing the facts surrounding the explosion). In Turner, we addressed the propriety of the tort suits brought against PCR by the injured employees and held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of PCR. 754 So. 2d at 691. The issue in this case,on the other hand, is whether Travelers Indemnity Company, the insurer that issued PCR its employer's liability insurance policy (in conjunction with a workers' compensation insurance policy ), is obligated under that policy to defend and indemnify PCR in the underlying tort suits. Travelers Indem. Co., 326 F.3d at 1191-92.
A. The Underlying Tort Suits
After the explosion, Turner's wife and Creighton both sued PCR. Turner's wife, as the personal representative of Turner's estate, brought a wrongful-death action, and Creighton brought a personal-injury action. PCR moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was immune from suit under the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of PCR on this ground, and the district court affirmed. Turner v. PCR, Inc., 732 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), quashed, 754 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 2000).
We quashed the district court's decision and held that PCR was not entitled to summary judgment on its exclusive-remedy defense. Turner, 754 So. 2d at 684. We began by noting that our case law already recognized that the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law did not bar an injured employee from suing his employer in tort if the employee could demonstrate that his injury was the result of an intentional tort committed against him by his employer. Id. at 686-87 (citing Eller v. Shova, 630 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1993); Fisher v. Shenandoah Gen. Constr. Co., 498 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1986); and Lawton v. Alpine Engineered Prods., Inc., 498 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1986)). We also noted that our case law had recognized two alternativ
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|