Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 11, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding a summary final judgment that classified a carpet installer as an independent contractor rather than an employee of the carpet seller, Miami Rug Company. Appellants claimed that due to the negligent parking of Miami Rug’s truck during carpet installation at their condominium, the appellant husband fell and sustained injuries. In response, Miami Rug filed for summary judgment, asserting it neither owned nor operated the vehicle involved and that the installer was contracted through Neal’s Carpet Service. An affidavit from Miami Rug’s regional manager confirmed that on the incident date, the installer was operating a vehicle owned by Neal’s Carpet Service. The trial court reviewed the installation agreement, which explicitly stated that the installer was an independent contractor responsible for all labor and expenses, with no employment relationship to Miami Rug. The agreement also outlined that Miami Rug had no control over how the work was performed, only over the final results. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Miami Rug.
Installer-Contractor is responsible for any re-work due to improper performance for one year post-completion, with repairs required within 48 hours. If the Company performs repairs, costs will be deducted from the Installer-Contractor's payments. The Company is not liable for any damages resulting from the use or failure of equipment by the Installer-Contractor or its employees, with the Installer-Contractor assuming full responsibility and indemnifying the Company against claims. The Installer-Contractor must ensure safety on-site, maintaining necessary precautions and protections. Any loss or damage from fire or other causes must be repaired or replaced at the Installer-Contractor's expense. The Contractor bears the risk of loss for materials and tools after receipt of carpet. The Installer-Contractor will manage its own finances and payroll, while the Company's obligation is limited to payment for contracted work. A deposition from Robert Abbale, a regional manager, indicates that Miami Rug can terminate its relationship with Neal’s Carpet Service for unsatisfactory work, customers with complaints contact Miami Rug directly, Neal’s does not own the delivery vehicle, and the Miami Rug salesperson prepares the installation diagram.
Neal’s Carpet Service was compensated by Miami Rug on a piecework basis, receiving payments after billing for services without deductions for social security or taxes. Miami Rug did not provide equipment, influence the hiring of Neal’s employees, or supervise the work performed. Although Miami Rug required Neal's to pick up assignments during its working hours, it did not dictate working hours. Neal’s Carpet Service was responsible for maintaining its liability insurance, with Miami Rug covering lapses and deducting premiums from payments. Miami Rug offered no employee benefits such as health insurance or workers’ compensation, and Neal’s was one of approximately ten carpet installers used by the company, with job assignments based on size and installer availability.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Miami Rug, determining that Neal’s Carpet Service acted as an independent contractor, not an employee. This conclusion was based on the nature of the contractual relationship and the lack of control exercised by Miami Rug over Neal's operations, consistent with the test established in Cantor v. Cochran, which considers factors from the Restatement (Second) of Agency. The court agreed with the trial court’s findings, confirming Neal’s status as an independent contractor.
