A Florida appeals court has ruled that a property manager cannot claim workers' compensation immunity to dodge a negligence lawsuit.
The decision, handed down on April 8, 2026, by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reverses a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Everest Campus East, LLC, the property management company at the center of the dispute.
The story begins with Jackie Teed, an employee of Bay Guard Pool Services. Teed alleged that he sustained injuries on the job while servicing a pool at an apartment complex in Tampa. Bay Guard had been hired by the complex's owner, Tampa SH1 Owner, LLC, to handle pool maintenance, and Teed received workers' compensation benefits through a policy Bay Guard carried for its employees.
Teed then turned around and sued Everest, the company managing the property under a separate agreement with the same owner. That agreement tasked Everest with keeping the complex in good operating condition and handling normal maintenance and repair work. Teed's claim was straightforward: Everest failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition, which resulted in his alleged injuries.
Everest pushed back, arguing it was shielded from the lawsuit under a provision of Florida's Workers' Compensation Law known as horizontal immunity. Under section 440.10(1)(e) of the Florida Statutes, a subcontractor working alongside another subcontractor on the same project for the same contractor is generally protected from negligence suits brought by the other subcontractor's employees, so long as workers' compensation insurance is in place and the subcontractor's own gross negligence was not the major contributing cause of the injury.
Everest's argument was simple: it and Bay Guard were both subcontractors of the property owner, working on the same project, so the immunity should apply. The trial court agreed, and after two lengthy hearings, entered final judgment in Everest's favor.
The Second District saw it differently.
Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Labrit pointed to a long line of Florida case law establishing that for horizontal immunity to kick in, there must be a "contractor" at the top of the chain – and that contractor's obligation to perform the work must stem from a contract with a third party. In other words, an owner maintaining its own property does not become a contractor simply by hiring companies to help.
The court drew a parallel to its own 2019 decision in Heredia v. John Beach & Assoc., where a homebuilder that hired multiple companies to develop land it owned was found not to be a contractor under the statute. The reasoning was the same then as it is now: if the property owner is acting on its own behalf rather than fulfilling an obligation to someone else, the contractor-subcontractor framework that horizontal immunity depends on simply does not exist.
In Teed's case, the only contracts in the record were between the owner and Everest, and between the owner and Bay Guard. There was no evidence that the owner had a primary obligation to any third party to maintain the premises or the pool – which meant the owner did not qualify as a contractor, and Everest, by extension, did not qualify as a subcontractor entitled to immunity.
The court also flagged a separate issue that neither party had raised. Under the plain language of the statute, a subcontractor claiming horizontal immunity must also show that either it or the contractor secured workers' compensation insurance. The court noted there was no evidence in the record that either Everest or the contractor had secured such coverage – an additional gap that would have undermined the immunity defense regardless.
The case has been sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.
For insurance professionals, the takeaway is worth noting. The decision is a reminder that horizontal immunity under Florida's workers' compensation framework is not a blanket protection. It hinges on whether the contractual relationships in the chain actually fit the statutory definition of contractor and subcontractor. Property managers, and the insurers who underwrite their liability exposure, should pay close attention to how these arrangements are structured – because when the chain breaks down, the immunity goes with it.
