|
Commercial Automobile |
|
Employee Exclusion |
Valentin Bautista-Bautista
(Bautista) and Elias Caballero (Caballero) were employees of Charlie's Tree
Service, Inc. (Charlie's). While both were on the job, Caballero was driving a
company truck in which Bautista was a passenger. The truck was in an accident
that killed Caballero and injured Bautista. Bautista settled with Charlie's for
worker's compensation benefits and sued Caballero's estate. Mercury Insurance
Company of Florida (Mercury) had issued a commercial auto policy where
Charlie's was the named insured. Mercury filed a declaratory judgment action to
establish that policy exclusions precluded coverage for Bautista's claim
against Caballero's estate. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The
circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Bautista and ruled that the
Mercury policy provided coverage for Bautista's claims against Caballero's
estate. Mercury appealed.
The appellate court
determined that the facts of the case fell under at least one exclusion and that
the circuit court should have granted summary judgment in favor of Mercury
because the policy stated that the coverage provided and Mercury's duty to
defend "did not apply to" " 6. Bodily injury to an employee of
an insured…arising out of or within the course of employment, except with
respect to a domestic employee, if benefits are neither paid nor required to be
provided under any Workers' Compensation, disability benefits, or other similar
law. This exclusion applies whether the insured may be liable as an employer or
in any other capacity and to any obligation to share damages with or repay
someone else who must pay damages because of the injury. "
The appellate court
determined that it was unquestioned that (1) Charlie's was "an
insured" within the exclusion's meaning, (2) that Bautista was Charlie's
employee, and (3) that Bautista's injuries arose out of or within the course of
his employment with Charlie's. It rejected Bautista's argument that "an
insured" must refer only to Caballero simply because Caballero was the
only "insured" sued. The definition of Insured included "any
additional driver listed but only while driving an insured auto."
Caballero was a listed driver driving an insured auto. The exclusion was not
confined to the parameters of just this lawsuit but to the facts of the
accident for which coverage was sought. It was clear that Charlie's was
"an insured" and exclusions like this one are inserted in policies
for the employer's benefit. Employers are required by law to protect their employees
in accord with Workers' Compensation Statutes. They then protect the public by
purchasing liability coverage. Since workers' compensation protects workers,
the liability insurance that protects the general public usually specifically
excludes coverage for injuries covered by workers' compensation.
The appellate court reversed
the final summary declaratory judgment and remanded the case to enter judgment
for Mercury, establishing that there was no coverage for Bautista's lawsuit
against Caballero's estate.
District Court of Appeal of
Florida, Fourth District. Mercury Insurance Company of Florida, Appellant, v.
Charlie's Tree Service, Inc., Scott Rosen as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Elias Caballero, Valentin Bautista-Bautista, Minerva Bautista Aleman,
his wife, Juan Victorino Cordoso, and Big Lake Roofing Enterprises, Inc.,
Appellees. No. 4D09-3192. Feb 24, 2010. Rehearing denied April 1, 2010. 29
So.3d 375