Marquez v. Martorina Family, LLC
55 N.E.3d 1252
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff William Marquez injured Nov. 2, 2011 while assisting in roof repairs on building at 2833 W Chicago Ave, Chicago.
- Building owned by Martorina Family, LLC; IPSA Corporation was general contractor; CENTRO Development, Inc. allegedly employed plaintiff.
- Plaintiff pursued workers’ compensation claim and settled with CENTRO and IPSA for $12,500 on July 2, 2012 via a lump-sum agreement.
- Settlement contract dispute language stated release of CENTRO and IPSA from workers’ compensation liability and recognized employer/employee relationship as disputed.
- Circuit court granted summary judgments: Martorina Family, LLC won; IPSA won on status/benefits grounds subject to appeal.
- Appellate court affirmed Martorina Family, LLC’s summary judgment, reversed IPSA’s summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martorina Family owed a duty under retained control theory. | Marquez argues Martorina retained control over work. | Martorina contends no retained control to impose duty. | Affirmed in favor of Martorina Family; no duty shown. |
| Whether IPSA’s liability is barred by exclusive remedy from workers’ compensation settlement. | Borrowed-employee status creates issues; settlement may not bar action. | Settlement with IPSA releases workers’ compensation liability and bars suit. | Reversed as to IPSA; settlement alone did not bar action. |
| Whether plaintiff was a borrowed employee of IPSA at the time of injury. | Genuine issue of material fact about borrowed-employee status. | Evidence supports IPSA as borrowed employee; status unclear. | Issue of fact remains; not conclusive against plaintiff. |
| If borrowed-employee status proven, whether exclusive remedy would bar suit. | If borrowed employee, 5(a) may bar civil action. | Exclusive remedy provisions would bar suit once status fixed. | Contingent on factual finding; not resolved by summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Esposito v. Dior Builders, 274 Ill. App. 3d 338 (1995) (discusses exclusive remedy/estoppel effects)
- Paluch v. Dever, 243 Ill. App. 3d 334 (1993) (res judicata/estoppel considerations in workers’ comp context)
- Mijatov v. Graves, 188 Ill. App. 3d 792 (1989) (judicial estoppel and res judicata in WC to civil actions)
- Gray v. National Restoration Systems, Inc., 354 Ill. App. 3d 345 (2004) (settlement/estoppel implications rejected; later analysis disfavored; distinguished facts)
- Laffoon v. Bell & Zoller Coal Co., 65 Ill. 2d 437 (1976) (exemption immunity under exclusive remedy context limited to certain employer relations)
- Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill. 2d 229 (1980) (settlement/exclusive remedy interplay and estoppel principles)