The Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion last week on a case involving four ironworkers who plummeted from a collapsed platform to a river below. One of the four men died in the accident.
The four men worked for Midwest Foundation Corporation, a construction company that had entered into a joint venture with Halverson Construction Company, Inc. to repair the McCluggage Bridge over the Illinois River in Peoria. Under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, an injured employee may not sue his employer for injuries sustained on the job. Instead, an injured worker must file a workers' compensation claim against his employer. The workers and their survivors collected workers' compensation benefits from Midwest, and then attempted to sue Halverson and the joint venture.
Unfortunately for the ironworkers and their families, the Supreme Court has decided that their case may not proceed. Justice Karmeier, writing on behalf of the Court, concluded that the same immunity afforded to Midwest, the workers' employer, must also be afforded to Halverson and the joint venture because both Halverson and the joint venture are "agents" of Midwest. Under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, an employee may not sue the agent(s) of his employer. The court found that Halverson was an agent because it was Midwest's partner and partners are agents of both the partnership (or in this case, the joint venture) and of one another for purposes of the busienss. Similarly, the court found that the joint venture was also shielded by the Workers' Compensation Act because, according to the terms of the joint venture agreement, the joint venture was ultimately responsible for payment of the workers' compensation insurance premiums. As such, the ironworkers may not recover for their injuries from either Halverson or the joint venture. Their exclusive remedy is workers' compensation benefits.
Justice Kilbride filed a dissenting opinion with which I agree. Justice Kilbride highlighted the fact that neither Halverson nor the joint venture produced conclusive evidence that they paid or contributed to the workers' compensation premiums before the accident. Allowing Halverson and the joint venture, neither of whom appear to have paid anything toward the injured employees' workers' compensation benefits, to nevertheless invoke the Workers' Compensation Act's immunity to escape tort liabiltiy for the employees' injuries is like letting them collect lotto winnings without ever buying a ticket. It's unfair for them to shield themselves with a law that is intended to protect employers who have PAID premiums for insurance. If neither of these entities have contributed to the payment of these premiums, why should they get the protection the law affords?
Continue reading "ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DECIDES 2000 BRIDGE DEATH CASE" »