PERSONAL INJURY | WORKERS’ COMPENSATION | FLORIDA LAW UPDATE
A Florida appeals court ruling shows that concrete pumping companies may face full personal injury lawsuits when they’re classified as materialmen or laborers rather than subcontractors.
Published: September 24, 2026
Case: Mirlalda, et al. v. Mitchell
Court: Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Decision Date: October 24, 2024
The Applicable Law
Florida’s workers’ compensation system generally provides immunity to employers and certain contractors from personal injury lawsuits by injured workers. However, this immunity doesn’t extend to everyone on a construction site. The law makes important distinctions between different types of companies and workers.
Under Florida law, subcontractors may be entitled to workers’ compensation immunity, which protects them from being sued directly by injured workers. However, companies classified as “materialmen” or “laborers” don’t receive this same protection.
Key Legal Rule: Workers’ compensation immunity is not automatic for all construction-related businesses. Courts must examine the specific role and relationship of each company to determine if immunity applies.
The “borrowed servant doctrine” provides another potential avenue for immunity. This legal concept applies when an employee of one company is temporarily working under the control and direction of another company. If proven, the controlling company may be treated as the temporary employer for workers’ compensation purposes.
What Happened in This Case
According to the facts described in the court’s opinion, this case involved multiple concrete-related companies and an injured worker. The appellants included several concrete pumping and services companies, along with individual defendants, who were sued by an injured worker.
The record reflected that the concrete companies sought protection from the lawsuit by claiming they were entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. They argued this immunity applied for two reasons: first, because they should be classified as subcontractors rather than materialmen, and second, because the borrowed servant doctrine should apply to their situation.
The trial court examined the evidence and granted summary judgment against the concrete companies, finding they were not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. The court made two independent findings: the companies were materialmen rather than subcontractors, and alternatively, they were laborers rather than subcontractors.
The concrete companies appealed this decision to the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal, challenging both the classification issue and the borrowed servant doctrine ruling.
The Court’s Analysis
The Subcontractor Classification Issue
The appeals court noted that the trial court made two independent findings about why the concrete companies were not subcontractors. As the court explained: “In concluding that Appellants are not subcontractors, the trial court made two findings. The trial court found that Appellants are not subcontractors because they are materialmen. Alternatively, the trial court found that Appellants are not subcontractors because they are laborers.”
However, the appeals court didn’t need to address the merits of the subcontractor argument. The concrete companies only challenged one of the trial court’s two findings in their appeal brief. The court stated: “Appellants do not challenge this alternative finding in their initial brief. We are, therefore, compelled to affirm on this issue.”
Important Appellate Rule: When a trial court makes multiple independent findings supporting its decision, an appellant must challenge all of them on appeal. Failing to address even one independent ground means the appeals court must affirm the lower court’s ruling.
The Borrowed Servant Doctrine Analysis
The appeals court provided detailed analysis of the borrowed servant doctrine, which allows a company to claim workers’ compensation immunity when an employee of another company is temporarily working under their control.
The court explained the legal standard: “The party alleging a special employee defense has a substantial burden to overcome the presumption of continuing general employment.” This means companies claiming borrowed servant protection must prove their case with strong evidence.
The court outlined three specific criteria that must be met:
- “Whether a contract for hire, expressed or implied, exists between the employee and the alleged special employer”
- “Whether the work being done at the time of the injury was essentially that of the alleged special employer”
- “Whether the power to control the details of work being done at the time of the accident resided in the alleged special employer”
Borrowed Servant Test: All three elements must be proven to establish a borrowed servant relationship. The company seeking immunity must show they had a contract with the worker, the work was essentially theirs, and they controlled the details of how the work was performed.
The appeals court applied the current summary judgment standard, noting that “an issue of fact is ‘genuine’ only if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the concrete companies failed to meet this standard.
The court found that “the evidence cited by Appellants does not demonstrate a genuine dispute of fact and is insufficient to overcome the presumption of continuing general employment.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Can concrete pumping companies be sued directly by injured workers in Florida?
Yes, if they’re classified as materialmen or laborers rather than subcontractors. This case shows that concrete pumping companies don’t automatically receive workers’ compensation immunity just because they work on construction sites. Courts examine the specific role and relationship of each company to determine if immunity applies.
What’s the difference between a subcontractor and a materialman in Florida construction law?
Subcontractors typically perform specific portions of construction work under contract with a general contractor and may be entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. Materialmen primarily supply materials or equipment to construction projects and generally don’t receive the same immunity protections. The classification depends on the company’s actual role and activities, not just their business name.
How hard is it to prove the borrowed servant doctrine in Florida?
Very difficult. The company claiming immunity has “a substantial burden” to overcome the presumption that a worker remains employed by their original employer. They must prove all three elements: an express or implied contract with the worker, that the work was essentially theirs, and that they controlled the details of how the work was performed.
What happens when a trial court makes multiple findings and I only challenge one on appeal?
You lose. Florida appeals courts will affirm the lower court’s decision if it’s based on multiple independent grounds and you only challenge some of them in your appeal brief. This is exactly what happened in this case – the concrete companies only challenged one of two independent findings and lost their entire appeal.
Does this ruling affect other types of construction companies?
Potentially yes. Any construction-related business that supplies materials, equipment, or labor services could face similar classification issues. The key is understanding your actual role on the project and whether you truly function as a subcontractor or as a materialman/laborer under Florida law.
Construction site injuries often involve complex questions about which companies can be held liable and which ones have immunity protection. These cases require careful analysis of business relationships, contracts, and the specific circumstances of the injury.
If you’ve been injured on a construction site, don’t assume that certain companies are protected from lawsuits. As this case demonstrates, many businesses that think they have workers’ compensation immunity may actually be fully liable for your injuries.
Contact Maderal Byrne & Furst PLLC today for a free consultation.
Case Reference
Mirlalda, Concrete Holdings & Services, LLC a/k/a and/or d/b/a C & C Concrete Pumping, C&C Concrete Pumping of Orlando, Inc. a/k/a and/or d/b/a C&C Concrete Pumping of Orlando, C & C Services Orlando, LLC a/k/a and/or d/b/a C&C Concrete Pumping of Orlando, C & C Concrete Pumping of Tampa, LLC, C&C Services Group, LLC, and Cancio v. Mitchell, Case No. 6D2024-2551, Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal, October 24, 2024.
Legal Disclaimer
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
- Mirlalda, et al. v. Mitchell, Case No. 6D2024-2551 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 24, 2024)
- Smith v. Greg’s Crane Serv., Inc., 576 So. 2d 814, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Crawford v. Fla. Steel Corp., 478 So. 2d 855, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 246 So. 2d 98, 101 (Fla. 1971)
- Bensen v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exch., 401 So. 3d 390, 394 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
- Willens v. Willens, 225 So. 3d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)
Source URL: https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2470586/opinion/Opinion_2024-2551.pdf
