8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 634a

Insurance — Liability — Torts — Settlement — Plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages from employer’s liability insurer based on injuries plaintiff sustained in work-related employment where plaintiff had already received lump sum payment of workers’ compensation benefits from same insurer and had executed full release of employer and insurer from any further liability for workers’ compensation benefits — Immunity from tort liability afforded employer by statute is also enjoyed by workers’ compensation insurer — Obligation under policy to pay non-workers’ compensation damages for which employer was liable when such recovery is permitted by state law did not obligate insurer to pay personal injury judgment in view of state law making workers’ compensation plaintiff’s exclusive remedy — Insurer’s motion for judgment on pleadings is granted

STANLEY WRIGHT, Individually and as assignee of UZIEL JAACOBI a/k/a UZI JACOBI, PETTIT TOOLS & SUPPLIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 00-8286 (09). August 2, 2001. Robert Lance Andrews, Judge.

[Reversed at 27 Fla. L. Weekly D1806b.]ORDER

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon Plaintiff, Stanley Wright’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and the Court having considered same, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in premises, finds and decides as follows:

This is an action for contract indebtedness, arising from a policy for insurance issued by Hartford to Pettit Tools and Supplies, Inc. (Pettit). Stanley Wright was employed by Pettit on July 16, 1998, on which date he suffered injuries arising out of and within the course and scope of his employment. Plaintiff sought and received workers’ compensation benefits, pursuant to a policy of workers’ compensation insurance issued by Hartford to Pettit. Plaintiff subsequently entered into a Stipulation and Petition for a lump sum payment for the release of liability of Pettit and Hartford for payment of future workers’ compensation benefits. The settlement by Plaintiff with Pettit and Hartford resulted in a full and complete release for any further liability to provide workers’ compensation benefits.

Prior to that settlement by Plaintiff with Pettit and Hartford, Plaintiff filed a civil complaint for recovery of damages as a result of personal injuries arising out of the aforementioned accident, and named Uziel Jaacobi a/k/a Uzi Jacobi, Pettit, and CNB International as defendants. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Uziel Jaacobi a/k/a Uzi Jacobi and Pettit for Final Judgment in the amount of $25,000.00 and for assignment of their rights to recovery from Hartford, with the provision that the Judgment could not be executed against Uziel Jaacobi a/k/a Uzi Jacobi or Pettit. Plaintiff, Stanley Wright, attempted to join Hartford in that civil action by Motion for Entry of Final Judgment against Hartford, which motion was denied, giving rise to the instant action. Plaintiff claims that Hartford refused to defend the civil action on behalf of Uziel Jaacobi a/k/a Uzi Jacobi and Pettit, under the terms of the Employer’s Liability policy.

Section 440.11 of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law provides that an employer’s liability under workers’ compensation shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer. §440.11(1) Florida Statutes. Under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law an employer, while obligated to compensate his employee for certain injuries regardless of fault, is immune from tort liability. Sullivan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 367 So.2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). That immunity from tort liability is also enjoyed by a workmen’s compensation insurer. Id.

Plaintiff relies, in support of his claim, upon the provisions of Part Two — Employers Liability Insurance. Plaintiff’s reliance is misplaced. Part B of the Insurance Liability Insurance Policy provides:

B. We will pay all sums you legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury to your employees, provided the bodily injury is covered by this Employers Liability Insurance.

The damages we will pay, where recovery is permitted by law, include damages:

1. for which you are liable to a third party by reason of a claim or suit against you by that third party to recover the damages claims against such third party as a result of injury to your employee;

2. for care and loss of services; and

3. for consequential bodily injury to a spouse, child, parent, brother or sister of the injured employee;

provided that these damages are the direct consequence of bodily injury that arises out of and in the course of the injured employee’s employment by you; and

4. because of bodily injury to your employee that arises out of and in the course of employment, claimed against you in a capacity other than as employer.

(Emphasis supplied). The Policy contains in Part C, certain exclusions to coverage, including but not limited to:

This insurance does not cover:

4. any obligation imposed by a workers compensation, occupational disease, unemployment compensation, or disability benefits law, or any similar law . . . .

It is clear that the coverage provided under Part Two of the policy is not applicable to the facts underlying this matter. By the explicit terms of the policy, non-workmen’s compensation damages are provided for when such recovery is permitted by State Law. Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law is the exclusive remedy provided to Plaintiff, as employee of Pettit, thereby precluding recovery for damages in excess of those provided by Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Act. This is exemplified in Part C, which specifically excludes payment for any obligation imposed by a workmen’s compensation law. Additionally, it must be noted that Plaintiff, Stanley Wright, individually or as assignee of Uziel Jaacobi a/k/a Uzi Jacobi or Pettit, is not a third party, he is the injured employee, taking the damages out of those covered under Part B (1).

In this Court’s opinion, this case constitutes an attempt on the part of Stanley Wright to seek double recovery for his injuries. Oppenheim v. Reliance Insurance Company, 804 F. Supp 305 (M.D. Fla. 1991). Stanley Wright was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits and he received them. As such, he could not obtain additional benefits directly from his employer because the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law gives Pettit immunity from further liability. Oppenheim, supra. Plaintiff sought to do indirectly that which he could not do directly, that is, recover from his employer’s insurance carrier by suing Uziel Jaacobi a/k/a Uzi Jacobi and Pettit for claims which would place them outside the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law. Id.

Based on the foregoing, this Court finds, as a matter of law, there is no coverage under the policy in question for the allegations in the underlying complaint. Because Stanley Wright obtained compensation for his injuries from workers’ compensation, he cannot also recover from Pettit under its policy with Hartford, either directly or indirectly.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Plaintiffs shall take nothing and go hence without day.

This Court reserves jurisdiction to determine entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

* * *