Florida Court Rules on First Stop for Claims

A recent Florida Appeals Court decision highlights that employees who wish to bring claims in tort against their employer must, as a matter of course, first seek remedial relief through the workers’ compensation system and may not first bring the issue of potential compensability to a trial court judge.
The case, Steak ‘N Shake v. Spears, highlights the import of Florida’s workers’ compensation adjudicative framework and may serve to prevent highly emotional claims for work-related mental distress from making their way to a jury, according to attorney Mary Cravatta.
Writing on law firm Foley & Lardner’s blog, Cravatta said that this is true even with respect to claims of emotional distress or trauma — claims which have potential to play on jurors’ emotions and result in high verdicts.
“While claims of mental distress that are not ultimately accompanied by physical injuries may not ultimately be compensable, Florida employers should nonetheless remember the Steak ‘N Shake decision and push for the initial decision of compensability to be determined by a carrier or administrative judge.”
READ MORE

Workers’ compensation premium renewal rates decreased in August, in contrast to increases in the average for most other commercial policies, according to the Ivans Index.
Renewal rates were down 1.45%, which was a slight improvement from July’s 1.48% decline.
WC premium renewal rate changes averaged -1.75% in Q2 2025, down from Q1 2025 at -1.51%.
The quarter reached its lowest premium renewal rate change in May,averaging -1.87% and ended with its highest rate of -1.61% in June.
READ MORE

Idaho’s Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s district courts retain subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that allege an employer’s “willful or unprovoked physical aggression.”
In a consolidated appeal of a district court’s decision and a corresponding decision from the Idaho Industrial Commission, the high court examined a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether an employee’s injury falls within the “willful and unprovoked physical aggression” exception to the exclusive remedy rule under Idaho’s worker’s compensation laws.
The Sept. 4 decision ruled that the district courts, not the Industrial Commission, holds jurisdiction over tort claims under the willful/unprovoked aggression exception, even if a worker’s compensation claim is filed first. The exclusive remedy rule doesn’t strip courts of authority to decide that narrow exception
Tort suits alleging willful aggression can move forward in district court without waiting for a Commission ruling; employers risk default judgments and cannot rely on the exclusive remedy shield if a court determines the exception applies.
READ MORE