Title: Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co.
Citation: 246 So. 2d 98
Docket Number: 39868
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: March 31, 1971

246 So. 2d 98 (1971)
SHELBY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Workmen's Compensation Carrier for T &amp; R Packing Company, Inc., Petitioners,
v.
AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Workmen's Compensation Carrier for T &amp; R Farms, Respondents.
No. 39868.

Supreme Court of Florida.
March 31, 1971.
B.C. Pyle, of Whittaker, Pyle &amp; Wood, Orlando, for petitioners.
Jesse F. Sparks, of Gurney, Gurney &amp; Handley, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.
*99 BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the Industrial Relations Commission. The sole question presented is whether the accident, which resulted in the death of Paul Peterson, occurred within the scope of Peterson's regular employment with T &amp; R Packing Company (Carrier, Shelby Mutual) or while Peterson's status was that of a special or loaned employee of T &amp; R Farms (Carrier, Aetna Insurance Company). The dispute is between the two insurance carriers as to the proper carrier to pay the benefits involved. The rights of the decedent's widow and minor children are not directly affected.
Determination of Peterson's status at the time of the accident requires examination of the facts and for this purpose we accept the following findings of fact as stated in the Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims:
Based on the foregoing facts, the Judge concluded that the decedent, at the time of the accident, was acting as an employee of T &amp; R Packing Company, Inc., and was not a special or loaned employee of T &amp; R Farms. The Judge, therefore, ordered Shelby Mutual Insurance Company to continue payment of compensation and found no liability on the part of Aetna Insurance Company. The Full Commission affirmed.
Shelby Mutual has petitioned to this Court contending that the Judge and Full Commission have failed to apply the law regarding loaned or special employees as *100 set out in Berrier v. Associated Indemnity Co.,[1] and Stuyvesant Corp. v. Waterhouse.[2] In both of those decisions the employee was found to be a loaned or special employee at the time of the accidents there involved. There are factual similarities between those cases and the case before us. However, there are several important distinctions. In both the Berrier and Stuyvesant cases, there was a definite arrangement made between the general and special employers regarding the employees' services, and the employees were aware of these arrangements. In addition, the special employer in each case undertook to pay some compensation for the services rendered by the special employee.
In the instant case there was no arrangement between the farm and the packing house regarding Peterson's services. He was paid his regular wages by T &amp; R Packing House and never received any compensation from T &amp; R Farms for his occasional services to the farm, after his employment by the packing house.
The testimony of Mr. Robert Reedy, one of the owners of both the farm and the packing company, was that when Mr. Peterson happened to be out at the farm, he would, on occasion, he asked to repair something for the farm. There is the following testimony by Mr. Reedy, regarding who paid for Peterson's work at the farm:
The testimony is undisputed that Peterson was paid $125.00 per week by the packing company for a five or six day week. On the day of the accident, a Saturday, he was receiving his regular pay from the packing company. Mr. Reedy testified:
Larson, in his authoritative text on workmen's compensation law,[3] points out that the first determination to be made in a purported lent or special employee situation is: "Did he [employee] make a contract of hire with the special employer?" This determination is essential, says Larson:
Florida cases on special employers follow Larson in requiring a contract, express or implied, between the special employer and the employee.[4] Since the contract to be proved is frequently an implied one, factors showing a consensual relationship such as benefit, right of control and payment of compensation, must be considered.[5]
Returning to the facts before us, we conclude, as did the Judge of Industrial Claims and the Full Commission, that the T &amp; R Packing Company remained Peterson's sole employer on the day of his fatal accident and that the evidence fails to establish any contract, express or implied, to substitute T &amp; R Farms as a *102 temporary or special employer on the day in question.
Accordingly, petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[1]  142 Fla. 351, 196 So. 188 (Fla. 1939).
[2]  74 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1954).
[3]  1A Larson, Workmen's Compensation, § 48.10 (1967).
[4]  Rainbow Poultry Co. v. Ritter Rental System, Inc., 140 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 1962); Alter Sales Co. v. Sykes, 190 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1966); Maige v. Cannon, 98 So. 2d 399 (Fla.App.1st 1957); Hamilton v. Shell Oil Co., 215 So. 2d 21 (Fla.App.4th 1968).
[5]  Hamilton v. Shell Oil Co., 215 So. 2d 21, 23 (Fla.App.4th 1968):

"In Rainbow Poultry Company v. Ritter Rental System, Inc., Fla. 1962, 140 So. 2d 101, 103, the Court held that the main factors to be considered in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship for the purposes of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Law are: (1) whether or not a contract for hire, express or implied, exists between the employee and the alleged special employer; (2) whether or not the work being done at the time of the injury was essentially that of the alleged special employer; and (3) whether or not the power to control the details of work being done at the time of the accident resided in the alleged special employer.
"These factors are not coequal. The first factor, that is the existence of a contract for hire, either express or implied, is a statutory prerequisite to the existence of an employer-employee relationship for purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Law because F.S. 1967, Section 440.02(2) (a), F.S.A., defines `employee' as:
`* * * every person engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract of hire * * * express or implied, oral or written * * *.' (Emphasis added.)
"The other factors outlined in Rainbow Poultry Co. v. Ritter Rental System, Inc. are basically indicators of the existence of the first factor. Any other relevant factors may be considered. For example, who pays the employee."