Bottling Group, LLC v. Bastien, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D906 (Fla. 3rd DCA Apr. 24, 2024):

The plaintiff was employed at a Pepsi packaging facility and was seriously injured when a co-worker, disgruntled over union activities, shot him several times. The plaintiff was denied workers’ compensation benefits because the carrier deemed that it was not a compensable accident or injury, and concluded that the injuries were not sustained in the course and scope of his employment.

The plaintiff then sued the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss, contending it was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity. Plaintiff argued that the defendant was equitably estopped from asserting immunity based on its denial of benefits.

The defendant then moved for partial summary judgment on the basis of the immunity. Plaintiff opposed, asserting that estoppel and the intentional tort exception precluded immunity.

On the eve of the summary judgment hearing, the plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to add another defendant. The trial court granted leave to amend. Neither defendant had answered the new complaint before the summary judgment hearing.

On appeal, the defendant asserted that the failure to plead estoppel in the plaintiff’s reply was fatal to the order granting summary judgment. The court was not persuaded, stating that at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the defendant had not yet answered the first amended complaint. Also, no continuance was sought, and the time for a reply was even ripe.

Moreover, the prior answer contained language denying that the injuries occurred within the course and scope of employment. Therefore, there was no obligation to file an avoidance.

Even though the court found that equitable estoppel is a fact-driven analysis, it did find it to be appropriate in this case and affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiff.