Florida—Compensability for Workplace Assaults
On July 9, 2026, the Florida Supreme Court, in
Bouayad v. Normandy Insurance Company, considered whether an employee was entitled to workers compensation (WC) benefits for injuries suffered as a result of an assault committed by a third-party tortfeasor while in the course and scope of employment.
In this case, a manager of a car rental company was shot by an unknown assailant at the end of his work shift. While it was undisputed that the injuries occurred in the course of employment, the parties disputed whether the injuries arose out of the employee’s work.
In its analysis the court explained that Florida statute 440.02(36) defines “arising out of” in terms of occupational causation, requiring that the work performed be the major contributing cause of the injury. The court emphasized that the inquiry should not focus on the specific task being performed at the moment of the injury. Rather, the relevant question is whether there is a nexus or link between the accident—including the resulting injuries—and the employee’s overall work duties and work environment, such that the injuries have “work-relatedness.” The court further explained that, in the context of workplace assaults, one way for a claimant to establish work-relatedness is through proof that the assailant had a work-related criminal motive or that the employee’s overall job duties and work environment exposed him to increased risks and hazards that brought about the injury.
With this decision, the court rejected the intermediate appellate court’s conclusion that the employee’s injuries were not compensable by improperly focusing on the specific task being performed at the time of the shooting, rather than considering the broader risks associated with the employment and, thus, remanded the case for the intermediate appellate court to apply the correct standard in determining whether the employee’s assault injuries were compensable.
Georgia—Exclusive Remedy as Jurisdictional Bar
On June 15, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Georgia, in
Crook v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P., considered whether the exclusive-remedy provision of the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) deprives a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction—or the authority to hear and decide a case—over a wrongful death lawsuit brought against an employer by the surviving spouse of an employee who suffered a fatal workplace injury.
The trial court, relying on prior decisions of the Court of Appeals, dismissed the wrongful death lawsuit concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claims were barred by the Act’s exclusive remedy provision. The surviving spouse appealed, arguing that the trial court’s ruling treating exclusive remedy as a bar to its jurisdiction meant that plaintiffs bringing lawsuits for workplace injuries would have to carry the burden of showing that exclusive remedy did not apply.
The appellate court agreed with the surviving spouse and reasoned that, although Georgia statute 34-9-11 makes workers compensation (WC) benefits the exclusive remedy for injuries covered by the Act, nothing in the statutory text divests trial courts of subject matter jurisdiction over tort lawsuits involving workplace injuries. The court also recognized that, even though the State Board of Workers’ Compensation has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate WC claims and benefits, trial courts are not precluded from determining whether exclusive remedy applies in an employee’s tort action. The court further noted that countless other appellate decisions have treated exclusive remedy as an affirmative defense that must be asserted and proven by the employer and concluded that those decisions were more consistent with the statutory language than the cases relied upon by the trial court.
With this decision, the court expressly disapproved the prior cases that treated exclusive remedy as a jurisdictional bar and not as an affirmative defense and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the wrongful death lawsuit.
For more information on other cases monitored by NCCI's Legal Division, visit
Court Case Insights on
ncci.com.
This article is provided solely as a reference tool to be used for informational purposes only. The information in this article shall not be construed or interpreted as providing legal or any other advice. Use of this article for any purpose other than as set forth herein is strictly prohibited.