FL Condo Association Was Statutory Employer of Valet Service Employee and Immune from Tort Liability

Because a condominium association had a contractual obligation to provide valet services to the condominium owners pursuant to the terms of the declaration of condominium, the association was the statutory employer of a valet employed by a parking service and, therefore, was entitled to employer immunity under Florida’s workers’ compensation law in a negligence action filed against it, held a state appellate court [Bal Harbour Tower Condo. Ass’n v. Bellorin, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7062 (Fla. 3d DCA, Oct. 19, 2022)]. The declaration of condominium was a sufficient “contract,” imposing upon the association an obligation that could be sub-contracted to another entity. As such, the trial court erred in denying the association’s motion for final summary judgment.

Background

Bellorin was employed as a valet by American Parking Systems, Inc. (“APS”). The defendant condominium association was established under chapter 718, Florida’s Condominium Act, by the recordation of its Declaration of Condominium (“Declaration”). Under the terms of the Declaration, the association was obligated to provide certain services to the condominium owners, including valet parking services. The association contracted with APS to provide that service for the owners.

Bellorin’s duties included carrying luggage to the condominium units. While delivering luggage, Bellorin was injured when a plastic panel fell from the ceiling of the service elevator. He subsequently filed suit against the association alleging negligence based on premises liability.

The association moved for summary judgment, contending in relevant part that it was Bellorin’s statutory employer pursuant to § 440.10(1)(b), Fla. Stat., because it subcontracted—to APS—its contractual obligation to provide valet services to unit owners. The trial court denied the association’s motion, finding that immunity did not apply to the association because the Declaration and By-Laws were not a contract. Accordingly, they did not impose a “contractual” obligation upon the association to provide valet parking services. It could not, therefore, be shielded from liability.

Appellate Court’s Analysis

The appellate court disagreed with the trial court. It said the Declaration operated as a contract among unit owners and the association, outlining their respective rights. The appellate court stressed that Florida’s Condominium Act did not obligate condominium associations to provide valet services to unit owners. Here, therefore, the association’s primary obligation to provide valet services to the unit owners arose under a contract—the Declaration—and not from its general statutory duty to manage and maintain the condominium property. Under the facts of this case, the association was Bellorin’s statutory employer and was entitled to immunity pursuant to the exclusive remedy provisions of the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law.