Peng v. Nardi
2017 IL App (1st) 170155
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Xiao Ling Peng, a restaurant employee, was a passenger in a 15-seat van owned by her employer (Royal Illinois) and driven by coworker Lei Guan when a multi-vehicle collision injured her.
- Employer provided the van, paid Guan $600/month to drive it, paid fuel, prohibited others from driving and limited personal use; Guan selected stops and routes for employee pickups from Chicago neighborhoods to the Hoffman Estates restaurant.
- Peng sued the other two drivers in 2014 and later added Guan; Guan moved to dismiss under the exclusivity provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing the vanpool made the injury compensable under the Act.
- The trial court initially denied Guan’s motion to dismiss, then granted his motion to reconsider after evidence that Peng (and another passenger) had filed worker’s compensation claims and that the insurer paid some medical bills; the court dismissed Peng’s claim against Guan with prejudice and authorized interlocutory appeal.
- Peng argued her commute was not part of employment, she had not affirmatively elected workers’ compensation (she filed a claim later to preserve rights), and employer’s voluntary payments did not bar her tort suit.
- The appellate court held the employer-controlled conveyance made the injury arise out of and in the course of employment, so the workers’ compensation remedy was exclusive and dismissal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injury in employer-provided van is within course of employment | Peng: commute was personal, unpaid, not required by employer; thus tort suit permitted | Guan: employer-controlled vanpool made trip work-related; exclusivity bars tort suit | Held: employer control of vehicle makes injury compensable under Act; tort claim barred |
| Whether plaintiff’s later worker’s compensation filing or insurer payments estop civil action | Peng: she filed comp claim only to preserve rights; did not elect benefits; insurer’s partial payments were unsolicited | Guan: Peng’s comp claim and insurer payments show compensability; estops duplicative civil recovery | Held: estoppel not necessary—compensability alone triggers exclusivity; actual election or payment not required |
| Whether trial court erred by granting motion to reconsider based on “newly discovered” evidence | Peng: evidence was available earlier; unfair second bite and prejudice | Guan: evidence showed compensability and supported dismissal; reconsideration permissible | Held: no abuse of discretion; earlier denial was legal error corrected on reconsideration |
| Whether trial court improperly ordered dismissal of workers’ compensation claim or denied stay | Peng: trial court purportedly ordered dismissal of comp claim and denied stay, exceeding authority | Guan: record ambiguous; Peng failed to preserve argument in trial court | Held: record insufficient to show such order; issue waived/preserved record unclear |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramsey v. Morrison, 175 Ill. 2d 218 (1997) (coemployee immunity where injury arose in scope of employment under Act)
- Hindle v. Dillbeck, 68 Ill. 2d 309 (1977) (employer-required transportation subjects commute injuries to workers’ compensation)
- Hall v. DeFalco, 178 Ill. App. 3d 408 (1989) (manager-driven employee transport to station found within course of employment)
- Sjostrom v. Sproule, 33 Ill. 2d 40 (1965) (employer-directed joint commute found compensable under the Act)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill. 2d 455 (1990) (workers’ compensation is exclusive remedy for job-related injuries)
- Copass v. Illinois Power Co., 211 Ill. App. 3d 205 (1991) (unsolicited or uninitiated payments insufficient by themselves to constitute election barring tort action)