Case Law Update July 2026
Bouayad v. Normandy Ins. Co., et al,___So.3d___(Fla. 7/9/26)
Arising Out Of/Workplace Assaults
Bill Rogner
The claimant was GM of a car rental business located in a hotel near Orlando Int’l Airport. He was shot several times in a dimly lit outdoor walkway by an unknown assailant. Thereafter, he stated to a guest that “Robert did this.” Although evidence suggested the assailant might be Robert Aponte, who had a vendetta against the claimant’s son, no concrete evidence existed that the assailant was Mr. Aponte. The JCC ultimately rejected the E/C defense that the incident did not arise out of employment, but was an intentional and personal, non-work-related event. The JCC found, among other things, that the employment substantially contributed to the risk of attack. The First DCA vacated the JCC’s Order. They explained that although he was working/walking between the employer properties, the walking itself did not cause the injuries. The DCA noted that cases relied upon by the JCC (Strother and following decisions) improperly introduced a risk exposure element to occupation causation, when the Legislature intended this analysis TP rely upon whether the work performed caused the injury. After accepting review, the Supreme Court rephrased the certified question broadly as whether injuries under WC law can be compensable when a third-party tortfeasor assaults an employee who is in the course and scope of employment. After analyzing F.S. ss. 440.09(1) (the arising-out-of element) and 440.02(36) (defining “arising out of”) they held the First DCA applied an overly narrow analysis of arising out of in this case. They found that the work-relatedness nexus or link required more than a mere analysis of the distinct task the employee was engaged in when injury occurred. Finding the DCA wrongly introduced a tort analysis, the Court further found the DCA refused to consider the risk-exposure evidence of the claimant. They rejected Normandy’s argument that the claimant had a burden to show that the assault had a work-related nature. The Court found third-party attacks may be compensable if the claimant can sustain their burden to show work-relatedness and specifically noted that one way to do that is prove the overall job duties and work environment exposed the claimant to an increased risk of assault. Remanded to the First DCA to conduct a proper CSE review, applying the correct legal standard.