280_C035

INDEPENDENT TRUCKER WAS NOT A STATUTORY OWNER-OPERATOR

Workers Compensation	Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC)
Petition for Benefits (PFB)	Evidentiary Hearing

Timothy J. Reynolds owned his own truck tractor. He entered into an Agreement with CSR Rinker Transport (Rinker) on January 9, 1998. The Agreement essentially required Reynolds to haul trailers arranged for and provided by Rinker.

Reynolds was injured in an accident on February 28, 2001 while performing work under the Agreement’s terms. He filed a Petition for Benefits (PFB) against Rinker, claiming the right to receive workers compensation medical and indemnity benefits. Rinker denied the PFB, stating that Reynolds was an owner-operator according to Florida statutes and excluded from coverage.

At the evidentiary hearing, the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that the Agreement was unambiguous and did not require judicial interpretation. It found that Rinker was responsible for (and incurred certain costs for) bodily injury, property damage liability, and cargo insurance that applied when Reynolds used his tractor to conduct Rinker’s business. All these facts notwithstanding, it concluded that the Agreement did not have any legal significance and denied Reynolds all compensation. It reasoned that Reynolds was an owner-operator as Florida statutes defined and not an employee entitled to workers compensation coverage under the law. Reynolds appealed.

The statute in effect on the date of injury controlled the disposition of the case. That Florida statute provided that the term employee did not include, “An owner-operator of a motor vehicle who transports property under a written contract with a motor carrier which evidences a relationship by which the owner-operator assumes the responsibility of an employee for the performance of the contract, if the owner-operator is required to furnish the necessary motor vehicle equipment and all costs incidental to the performance of the contract, including, but not limited to, fuel, taxes, licenses, repairs, and hired help; and the owner-operator is paid a commission for transportation service and is not paid by the hour or on some other time-measured basis.” (Emphasis added)

The statute had the following five-part test to determine owner-operator status:

1. There must be a written agreement.

2. The agreement must evidence a relationship by which the owner-operator assumes the responsibility of an employer for the performance of the contract.

3. Under the agreement, the owner-operator must furnish the necessary motor vehicle equipment.

4. The owner-operator must furnish all costs incidental to the performance of the contract.

5. The owner-operator is paid on commission and not on an hourly basis.

Reynolds correctly contended that failure of one element precludes his exclusion from benefits and that it was number 4. The Agreement contained the following provision:

12. Insurance to be Furnished by Rinker Materials Corporation: Rinker shall at its expense furnish and maintain bodily injury, property damage liability, and cargo insurance applicable while OWNER’s equipment is being operated on RINKER business.

Rinker’s counsel admitted that the insurance coverage this paragraph required was necessary to the performance of the contract. In at least eight instances, the Agreement utilized the word “equipment” synonymously with Reynolds’ tractor. The plain language of the unambiguous terms of the Agreement revealed that furnishing and maintaining insurance was an essential and necessary term of the Agreement that was Rinker’s responsibility, not Reynolds’.

The appeals court agreed with the JCC’s conclusion that Rinker incurred the cost of the insurance that paragraph 12. of the Agreement required and did not challenge it, However, it determined that the JCC erred in concluding that Rinker’s provision of such insurance did not have any legal significance. It reversed the JCC’s order and remanded the case back to the JCC to conduct further hearings to determine Reynolds’ entitlement to benefits.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Timothy J. Reynolds, Appellant, v. CSR Rinker Transport a/k/a Rinker Transportation Corp., and Crawford & Company, Appellees. No. 1D09-1052. March 25, 2010. 31 So.3d 268