[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10562

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-01492-GAP-DAB

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY,

a foreign corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DON BELL, INC., a Florida corporation,

d.b.a. DBI Demolition, et al.,

Defendants,

JAMES ANTHONY CASTO, 

individually and on behalf of AC, a minor, and RC, a minor,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 30, 2014)

Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-10562 Date Filed: 07/30/2014 Page: 1 of 5 
2

PER CURIAM:

James Anthony Casto sued Don Bell, Inc. for damages resulting from 

injuries he incurred in a motor vehicle accident while driving Don Bell, Inc.’s 

dump truck. Don Bell, Inc. sought a defense and indemnity from its insurer, 

Wesco Insurance Company, which brought this action seeking a declaration that 

Casto’s injury is covered by Florida’s workers’ compensation statute and thus 

excluded from its policy’s coverage. The district court granted summary judgment 

to Wesco Insurance Company, holding that Casto was an employee and, therefore, 

covered by the workers’ compensation statute and subject to the policy’s 

exclusion. We agree.

I.

Wesco Insurance Company (“Wesco”) issued an insurance policy to Don 

Bell, Inc. (“DBI”) that excludes from coverage “any obligation for which the 

insured or insured’s insurer may be held liable under any workers’ compensation . . 

. law.” Casto contends that the exclusion is inapplicable because he was a 

volunteer and, therefore, not covered by Florida’s workers’ compensation statute. 

He argues that the district court erred in finding that he was an employee because 

he produced sufficient record evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as 

to whether he was a volunteer or an employee. Casto also contends that the record 

Case: 14-10562 Date Filed: 07/30/2014 Page: 2 of 5 
3

evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he 

was a temporary worker and, as such, not subject to the policy exclusion. Neither 

of these arguments has merit.

1. Voluntary Worker

Under Fla. Stat. § 440.02(15) (a), an employee is any person who receives 

remuneration from an employer for the performance of any work or service. A 

worker who “does not receive monetary remuneration for services is presumed to 

be a volunteer unless there is substantial evidence that valuable consideration was 

intended by both the employer and employee.” Fla. Stat. § 440.02 (15)(d)(6). 

When determining whether a worker is a volunteer or an employee, it is the intent 

to remunerate that creates the relationship. Fla. Stat. § 440.02 (15)(d)(6).

The district court held that in this case there was substantial evidence that 

valuable consideration was intended. Although Casto and Wid Bell, the principal 

of DBI, were friends and had in the past exchanged gratuitous services, Casto 

testified in his deposition that he expected to be compensated for driving the dump 

truck on the day in question. He expected a reduction in the debt that he believed 

he owed to Wid Bell, the principal and sole owner of DBI. Bell and the foreman 

who hired Casto and directed his work both testified that DBI intended to 

remunerate Casto for his services. Bell testified that he would have paid Casto for 

his services if Casto wished to be paid. There was no evidence in the record to the 

Case: 14-10562 Date Filed: 07/30/2014 Page: 3 of 5 
4

contrary. Therefore, the district court concluded that there was no genuine issue of 

fact as to whether Casto was an employee and subject to Florida workers’ 

compensation statute at the time of his injury. 

This was not error. No witness testified that Casto was a volunteer or had 

agreed to work for free. Casto himself testified that he expected to be paid. DBI’s 

representatives testified that they intended that he be paid. Therefore, the 

substantial evidence was that Casto was an employee, not a volunteer. As an 

employee, Casto was covered by Florida’s workers’ compensation law and “any 

obligation” arising under that law is expressly excluded from Wesco’s policy 

coverage. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that Wesco’s coverage 

exclusion applies to Casto.

2. Temporary Worker

Casto next argues that the district court erred in not finding that Wesco’s 

policy itself did not define him as an employee. He points out that, under the 

policy, he was a temporary worker and the policy expressly excludes temporary 

workers from its definition of employee. Accordingly, Casto argues, he was not an 

employee and was not subject to the policy’s workers’ compensation exclusion.

This argument is irrelevant to the issue of whether Casto was an employee 

for the purposes of Florida’s workers’ compensation statute. That status is not 

affected by the policy’s definition of “employee” in any way. Whether Casto was 

Case: 14-10562 Date Filed: 07/30/2014 Page: 4 of 5 
5

an employee – temporary or permanent – is defined by Florida law for purposes of 

workers’ compensation. As we have seen, he was an employee under that statute. 

Therefore, any obligation DBI may incur under the workers’ compensation statute 

is expressly excluded from Wesco’s policy coverage. The district court correctly 

concluded that the policy’s definition of employee is irrelevant to the policy’s 

workers’ compensation exclusion.

II.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is due to be

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10562 Date Filed: 07/30/2014 Page: 5 of 5