PERSONAL INJURY | PREMISES LIABILITY | WORKERS COMPENSATION | FLORIDA LAW UPDATE | APRIL 2026
A recent appellate decision shows that property management companies cannot automatically shield themselves from injury lawsuits. Claiming “subcontractor” status under Florida’s workers’ compensation law requires meeting specific statutory criteria.
Published: April 15, 2026
Case: Teed v. Everest Campus East, LLC, et. al.
Court: Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: April 8, 2026
The Applicable Law
Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law includes a provision that protects certain businesses from injury lawsuits through what lawyers call “horizontal immunity.” Under section 440.10(1)(e) of Florida Statutes, this immunity applies when multiple subcontractors work for the same general contractor on the same project.
The statute states: “A subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work . . . is protected by the exclusiveness-of-liability provisions of section 440.11 . . . on account of injury to an employee of another subcontractor.”
For this immunity to apply, two key requirements must be met: (1) the subcontractor must have secured workers’ compensation insurance for its employees, and (2) the subcontractor’s own gross negligence cannot be the major contributing cause of the injury.
Key Legal Rule: For horizontal workers’ compensation immunity to apply, there must be a true “contractor” whose primary obligation to perform work arises from a contract with a third party, not just an owner managing its own property.
What Happened in This Case
According to the facts described in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured while servicing a pool at a Tampa apartment complex. The record reflected that he worked for a pool maintenance company called Bay Guard Pool Services at the time of the incident. Bay Guard had a contract with the apartment complex owner to maintain the pool.
The evidence described in the court’s opinion showed that a property management company called Everest Campus East, LLC managed the apartment complex under a separate agreement with the owner. This management agreement required Everest to “keep the complex in good operating condition” and perform “normal maintenance and repair work.”
After the incident, the allegations in the case were that the plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits through Bay Guard’s insurance policy. He then filed a negligence lawsuit against Everest, claiming the property manager failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition.
The court’s opinion described how Everest moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from the lawsuit under Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Everest claimed it qualified as a “subcontractor” working on the same project as Bay Guard, making both companies immune from suit under the horizontal immunity provision.
The Court’s Analysis
The Definition of “Contractor” Under Florida Law
The appellate court explained that horizontal immunity only exists “between subcontractors working for a ‘contractor’ on the same project.” The court emphasized that Florida courts have consistently held that a “contractor” under this law must be “an entity whose primary obligation to perform the subcontracted work arises from a contract with a third party.”
The court quoted from the landmark case Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts: “For a company to be a contractor under this section, its primary obligation in performing a job or providing a service must arise out of a contract.”
Critical Distinction: The law distinguishes between a true contractor (who has contracted with a third party to perform work) and a property owner who simply hires companies to maintain their own property.
Comparison to Similar Cases
The court referenced its previous decision in Heredia v. John Beach & Associates, which involved similar facts. In that case, a homebuilder hired multiple companies to develop land it owned. When an employee of one company was injured and sued another company, the court found no horizontal immunity applied because “there was no evidence that the homebuilder was performing any work, of any kind, on behalf of any third party.”
The court explained that the homebuilder “was acting on its own behalf as the owner of its own property,” not as a contractor with obligations to third parties.
Why Everest Did Not Qualify for Immunity
The court found that “Everest presented no evidence showing that the Owner had a primary contractual obligation to any third party to maintain the premises or the pool that it then subcontracted to Everest or Bay Guard.”
The record contained only two contracts: the management agreement between the owner and Everest, and the pool maintenance contract between the owner and Bay Guard. According to the court’s analysis, “Neither qualifies the Owner as a ‘contractor,’ or Everest as a ‘subcontractor,’ under section 440.10(1)(e).”
Key Finding: Property owners who hire companies to maintain their own property are not “contractors” under the workers’ compensation immunity statute, even if they hire multiple service providers.
Additional Insurance Requirement Issue
The court noted an additional problem with Everest’s immunity claim. Even if Everest had qualified as a subcontractor, the law requires that the subcontractor “secured workers’ compensation insurance for its employees.” The court observed that “there is no evidence of such coverage in the record,” though the parties had not raised this specific issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can property management companies be sued for injuries on the properties they manage?
Yes, property management companies can face negligence lawsuits for injuries that occur on properties they manage. This case shows that they cannot automatically claim immunity under workers’ compensation law simply because other service providers also work on the same property. The key factor is whether there’s a true general contractor with third-party obligations, not just a property owner hiring multiple service companies.
What is “horizontal immunity” in workers’ compensation law?
Horizontal immunity protects subcontractors from being sued by employees of other subcontractors working on the same project. The idea is that if everyone is covered by workers’ compensation insurance, injured workers should receive benefits through that system rather than filing lawsuits. However, this immunity only applies when there’s a legitimate contractor-subcontractor relationship, not just multiple service providers working for the same property owner.
How do courts determine if someone qualifies as a “contractor” under this law?
Florida courts look for whether the alleged contractor has a “primary obligation to perform work that arises from a contract with a third party.” Simply owning property and hiring companies to maintain it doesn’t make you a contractor under this law. There must be evidence that you contracted with someone else to provide services and then hired subcontractors to help fulfill those obligations.
What does this decision mean for injured workers?
This decision is favorable for injured workers because it prevents property management companies and similar businesses from hiding behind workers’ compensation immunity when they don’t truly qualify for it. If you’re injured on someone else’s property due to unsafe conditions, you may still have the right to file a negligence lawsuit against the property manager or other responsible parties, even if you received workers’ compensation benefits from your employer.
Can I sue both my employer and a property owner if I’m injured at work?
Generally, you cannot sue your own employer if you’re covered by workers’ compensation insurance – that’s the trade-off the system creates. However, you may be able to sue third parties like property owners, property managers, or other companies whose negligence contributed to your injury. Each case depends on the specific relationships between the parties and whether any immunity provisions apply.
Cases involving workers’ compensation immunity and third-party liability can be incredibly complex, with multiple layers of insurance coverage and legal relationships to analyze. Property owners and management companies often try to avoid responsibility by claiming various forms of immunity, but as this case shows, those claims don’t always hold up under scrutiny.
If you’ve been injured while working on someone else’s property, you need experienced legal counsel to evaluate all potential sources of compensation and identify which parties may be held accountable for your injuries. The interplay between workers’ compensation benefits and third-party negligence claims requires careful analysis of contracts, insurance policies, and Florida’s complex statutory framework.
About Maderal Byrne & Furst
Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC is a Miami-based personal injury law firm. We encourage you to learn more about our firm, meet our attorneys, explore our other practice areas, view our results or see our rating and reviews on Google.
Contact Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC today for a free consultation.
Case Reference
Teed v. Everest Campus East, LLC, et. al., No. 2D2025-0213 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 8, 2026).
Applicable Statutes:
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This blog post is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law is subject to change, and the application of legal principles varies depending on the specific facts of each case. If you have questions about your specific situation, you should consult a licensed Florida attorney. This post discusses legal concepts and principles addressed in the cited court opinion and context of that opinion. It is not intended to make any assertions about the truth of any allegations or evidence relating to any party to that case.
Citations & Sources
- Teed v. Everest Campus East, LLC, and Bay Guard Pool Services, No. 2D2025-0213 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 8, 2026)
- Gator Freightways, Inc. v. Roberts, 550 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1989)
- Heredia v. John Beach & Assoc., 278 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
- Slora v. Sun ‘N Fun Fly-In, Inc., 173 So. 3d 1099 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Antinarelli v. Ocean Suite Hotel, 642 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Miami Herald Publ’g v. Hatch, 617 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Woods v. Carpet Restorations, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2000)
- Amorin v. Gordon, 996 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Bruno v. Destiny Transp., Inc., 921 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
Source: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2487134/opinion/Opinion_2025-0213.pdf