Morales v. Herrera, 68 N.E.3d 930

Maria Morales and Maricela Sanchez were temporary employees of Express sent to work at Radio Flyer's Chicago facility and supervised by Radio supervisor Alberto Herrera.
On April 21, 2010 Herrera drove plaintiffs from Radio’s Chicago site to a distant Radio facility (Elwood); en route Herrera negligently collided with another vehicle and plaintiffs were injured.
Plaintiffs received workers’ compensation benefits through Express and then sued Radio and Herrera in tort for their injuries.
Express’s staffing agreement and testimony established Radio supervised, directed, and controlled Express’s temporary workers at the site; Radio could remove Express employees from its premises.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs were Radio’s borrowed employees, the injuries occurred in the course of employment, and the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy/estoppel barred the tort claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs were "borrowed employees" of Radio	Plaintiffs argued factual dispute exists about Radio’s right to control and whether an implied contract with Radio existed	Radio/Express showed Radio directed work, set schedules, and could exclude workers; plaintiffs accepted directions	Held: Radio was the borrowing employer (no genuine factual dispute)
Whether acceptance of workers' compensation estops plaintiffs from suing Radio/Herrera	Plaintiffs argued WC benefits to Express do not estop them from suing Radio and they could be Express employees yet not Radio’s	Defendants argued acceptance of WC benefits plus borrowed-employee status bars further recovery	Held: Acceptance of benefits (and borrowed-employee status) estops plaintiffs from common-law claims
Whether the collision occurred within the scope of employment	Plaintiffs argued travel to Elwood was outside regular commute and not required by Express	Defendants argued travel was for Radio’s benefit and plaintiffs were being transported by Radio supervisor to perform assigned work	Held: Collision occurred in course of employment — travel was for Radio’s purposes
Whether coemployee immunity applies to Herrera	Plaintiffs sought tort recovery against Herrera individually	Defendants argued Herrera was a coemployee and protected by Act’s exclusive remedy	Held: Herrera immune as coemployee/borrowed-employee under the Act

A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 82 Ill.2d 341 (loaned-employee test: control and contract of hire)
Pyne v. Witmer, 129 Ill.2d 351 (general rule that travel to/from work is outside scope; exception where travel is for employer’s purposes)
Collier v. Wagner Castings Co., 81 Ill.2d 229 (acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits precludes subsequent tort action)
Chavez v. Transload Services, L.L.C., 379 Ill. App.3d 858 (Workers’ Compensation Act immunity applies to loaning and borrowing employers)
Chaney v. Yetter Manufacturing Co., 315 Ill. App.3d 823 (statutory codification and discussion of loaned-employee concept)