Falge v. Lindoo Installations, Inc.
2017 IL App (2d) 160242
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- On Aug. 7, 2012, Terrance Falge, employed by temporary agency Labor Ready, was assigned to work at Lindoo Installations and suffered a partial amputation of his right index finger while unbundling shelving being moved by a Lindoo forklift.
- Labor Ready and Lindoo had a national contract (Dec. 8, 2011) and a local contract (May 4, 2012) stating Labor Ready would place temporary workers and Lindoo would supervise, direct, and provide site-specific training, safety equipment, and discipline for those workers.
- Labor Ready paid Falge, handled payroll, and provided basic training; Lindoo set work schedule, provided tools, assigned tasks, controlled breaks, and had the right to remove Labor Ready employees from its worksite.
- At the accident site, Falge took directions from Lindoo employees (nonverbal at times due to language differences); no Labor Ready supervisor was present that day.
- Falge filed a workers’ compensation claim against Labor Ready and a negligence suit against Lindoo. Lindoo moved for summary judgment invoking the Workers’ Compensation Act exclusive-remedy for borrowing employers; the trial court granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lindoo was a "borrowing employer" such that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy bars Falge’s negligence claim | Falge contends there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether Lindoo exercised control and whether he was Lindoo’s borrowed employee | Lindoo argues undisputed facts show it directed and controlled Falge’s work and had the right to dismiss him from site, so the Act bars the common-law suit | Court held Lindoo was a borrowing employer as a matter of law; summary judgment for Lindoo affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 82 Ill. 2d 341 (Ill. 1980) (sets two-part test for borrowed-employee: control and contract of hire; lists control factors)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455 (Ill. 1990) (explains Act imposes no-fault liability and bars common-law suits against employers)
- Chaney v. Yetter Mfg. Co., 315 Ill. App. 3d 823 (Ill. App. 2000) (temporary-agency worker found to be borrowed employee where defendant supervised and controlled work)
- Chavez v. Transload Servs., L.L.C., 379 Ill. App. 3d 858 (Ill. App. 2008) (borrowing employer found where defendant set schedule, trained, and could dismiss worker from site)
- American Stevedores Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 408 Ill. 449 (Ill. 1951) (temporary-help arrangement treated as borrowed-employee situation where agency merely paid workers)
- Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404 (Ill. 2008) (summary-judgment principles and the need to resolve no genuine issue of material fact)