Cases

4th DCA.  The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.  When reviewing an order granting summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.  It is the burden on the party moving for summary judgment to prove conclusively the complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact.

The question in this case related to whether the plaintiff was deemed to be an employee of a subcontractor, providing exclusive workers' compensation immunity in a civil cause of action against the general contractor.  In particular, this case concerned whether the plaintiff qualified as an owner/operator of a motor vehicle that transported property under a written contract with a motor carrier in accordance with Section 440.02(15)(d)4, Florida Statutes.

In this case, the alleged owner/operator had contracted with an entity identified as a "broker" and it was alleged by the plaintiff that such broker relationship did not constitute a contract with a motor carrier as referenced in Section 440.01(15)(d)4, Florida Statutes.  It was undisputed that the plaintiff otherwise met the statutory elements of an owner/operator status as referenced in this statutory provision. 

Utilizing the definition of a "motor carrier" as provided in Section 320.01(3), Florida Statutes and federal law, the court concluded that the term "broker" was not included in the definition of a motor carrier.  Also the Code of Federal Regulations definition of a "broker" was utilized by the court in this case in determining that a motor carrier contract did not exist.  Whether a company is a broker or a carrier is not determined by what the company labels itself as but by how it represents itself in the world and its relationship to a shipper.  Because the difference between a carrier and a broker is often blurry, the carrier/broker inquiry is inherently fact intensive and not suited to summary judgment.