No Workers' Comp Immunity! No Insurance! Sure Is a Problem

25 August 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

In many states, workers’ compensation benefits are ordinarily the exclusive remedy for an employee injured or killed on the job. In exchange for these benefits, often awarded on a “no fault” basis, the employee generally forfeits the right to bring civil suit (subject to limited exceptions) against his employer. However, this expected employer immunity may not always be there with serious implications.

A recent order from a Florida state court illustrates the point. The court concluded that the exclusive remedy provision of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act is unconstitutional because the benefits available to employees have been so eroded over time by the legislature they no longer are an adequate alternative to civil suit. Included in the 20-page opinion are references to cases in Colorado and Missouri where the courts found some portion of their state workers compensation laws unconstitutional.

Thankfully for now, this decision will not be binding on other courts in Florida unless ultimately upheld by the state’s Supreme Court. However, there is already another case pending with the Florida Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act. These cases suggest a trend which has been gaining some momentum across the country as employees struggle to find a way to reverse the reduction in benefits which have been imposed by legislatures over many years.

The prospect of having workers compensation immunity held unconstitutional would not be of such concern if employers could be assured that in the absence of that coverage some other form of insurance coverage would apply. But that is not necessarily so because other insurance typically procured by employers, such as general comprehensive liability and employee liability coverage, have been designed with the expectation that, barring exceptional circumstances, workers’ compensation coverage would be available and there is no need to duplicate coverage.

Workers’ compensation immunity, in constitutional form, has a limited exception when an employer intends to injure an employee. Rationally it may seem that this is something which would never happen, or rarely so. But that never stops enterprising plaintiff’s attorneys from becoming very creative and enthusiastic about what is “intentional.” In this circumstance, again, there may be no coverage for the employer due to exclusions related to this very exception and intentional acts, among others. Accordingly, an employer could be sued by an employee, or the estate of an employee, claiming he was intentionally injured and also by its insurance carrier contending that there is no coverage requiring either defense or indemnity pertaining to the employee suit. To compound matters, the employee might bring a punitive damage claim which almost surely would not be covered by insurance coverage.

If the Florida workers compensation law is found unconstitutional, the state legislature may fix it and the insurance industry may adapt, but the employer might have a gap in time where there is no coverage and employees are rushing to court to secure what they believe to be a superior option. This could foreshadow an emerging legal issue that employers might be wise to keep an eye on nationwide. It may advisable for employers to confer with their counsel and insurance brokers, specifically convey the perceived risk for which protection is desired, and seek their assistance in reducing or eliminating this risk.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services