Teed v. Everest Campus East, LLC
The Second DCA reversed summary judgment, holding that Everest was not entitled to horizontal workers'-compensation immunity under section 440.10(1)(e) because neither it nor Bay Guard worked for a statutory 'contractor.' An entity qualifies as a 'contractor' only if its primary obligation to perform the work arises from a contract with a third party; the complex owner's duty to maintain its own property arose from ownership, not a third-party contract, so no horizontal immunity existed.
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.