James v. Hernandez, Premier Construction-Residential, LLC

── James v. Hernandez, Premier Construction-Residential, LLC ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D2025-0015 _____________________________ JEFFREY JAMES, Appellant, v. ABRAHAM HERNANDEZ, JR., individually, PREMIER CONSTRUCTION-RESIDENTIAL, LLC, d/b/a PREMIER FINE HOMES, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and PREMIER WATERPROOFING & PAINTING, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellees. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Angela C. Dempsey, Judge. May 20, 2026 ROWE, J. Jeffrey James appeals from a final summary judgment entered for Premier Construction-Residential, LLC (Premier) in James’ negligence action against the company. James was injured while riding his bicycle near the intersection of Fletcher Oaks Road and Pedrick Road in Tallahassee. James collided with a vehicle driven by Abraham Hernandez Jr. and sustained serious injuries from the collision. Hernandez owned Premier Waterproofing & Painting (PWP), a painting subcontractor for Premier. At the time of the accident, Hernandez was traveling between Premier job sites. James sued Hernandez, PWP, and Premier. James asserted that Hernandez was Premier’s agent and Premier was thus vicariously liable for Hernandez’s actions. Premier disagreed, asserting that Hernandez was an independent contractor and not its agent. Premier moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and entered final summary judgment for Premier. We affirm. I. This court reviews de novo an order granting summary judgment. Smith v. Westdale Asset Mgmt., Ltd., 353 So. 3d 108, 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). To obtain summary judgment, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a). “The test for the existence of a genuine factual dispute is whether ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Anderson v. Sch. Bd. of Escambia Cnty., 416 So. 3d 427, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (quoting In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 75 (Fla. 2021)), Even so, to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, it is no longer “plausible to maintain that ‘the existence of any competent evidence creating an issue of fact, however credible or incredible, substantial or trivial, stops the inquiry and precludes summary judgment, so long as the “slightest doubt” is raised.’” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 76 (Fla. 2021) (quoting Bruce J. Berman & Peter D. Webster, Berman’s Fla. Civ. Proc. § 1.510:5 (2020 ed.)). In other words, when the evidence from the nonmoving party “is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249–50 (1986) (internal citations omitted); Casey v. Mistral Condo. Ass’n, 380 So. 3d 1278, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024). 2  II. James argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for Premier because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hernandez was Premier’s agent (and thus whether Premier was vicariously liable for Hernandez’s actions). James argues that the subcontractor agreement between Premier and Hernandez did not unambiguously show that Hernandez was an independent contractor, and the parties’ actual practice and relationship showed instead that Hernandez was Premier’s agent. Under Florida law, a principal is vicariously liable for the negligence of an agent, but not of an independent contractor. Del Pilar v. DHL Glob. Customer Sols. (USA), Inc., 993 So. 2d 142, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 401.14(b)(1). Whether an age