Prodanic v. Grossinger City Autocorp
975 N.E.2d 658
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Milovan Prodanic died while repairing an overhead door at City Autocorp; Moevanu Prodanic sued for wrongful death and survival damages.
- City Autocorp argued Prodanic’s claim is barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act because Mike was a borrowed employee.
- Mike was employed by Chevrolet and paid through Chevrolet, but performed work at City Autocorp (Grossinger entities within the same corporate family).
- Evidence showed City Autocorp could control Mike’s work—calling him in, assigning tasks, and stopping unsafe work—while Gary, City Autocorp’s president, had authority over Mike’s employment.
- Mike used City Autocorp tools and credit, had dealership keys, traveled to City Autocorp for work, and Chevrolet provided workers’ compensation coverage, creating a loaned-worker dynamic.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for City Autocorp, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding no genuine issue of material fact existed to show Mike was not a borrowed employee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mike a borrowed employee of City Autocorp? | Prodanic argues genuine issues exist on control and contract. | City Autocorp asserts undisputed control and consent facts establish borrowed-employee status. | Yes; Mike was City Autocorp’s borrowed employee. |
| Does the Act’s exclusive remedy preclude a civil suit against a borrowing employer? | Prodanic contends an exception to the exclusive remedy applies? | City Autocorp relies on the Act’s exclusive remedy for borrowed employees. | Yes; Act provides plaintiff’s sole remedy. |
| Was there an implied contract for hire between Mike and City Autocorp? | Prodanic argues no clear implied contract existed. | City Autocorp’s control and conduct imply an employment relationship independent of formal papers. | Yes; implied consent and city control indicate hire. |
| Did the two-prong test (control and contract) support borrowed-employee status? | Prodanic disputes the sufficiency of control/contract evidence. | City Autocorp had control over Mike and an implied contract; prongs met. | Yes; both prongs satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.J. Johnson Paving Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 82 Ill.2d 341 (1980) (two-prong test for borrowed-employee status (control and hire))
- Chaney v. Yetter Manufacturing Co., 315 Ill. App.3d 823 (2000) (consent and control as critical to borrowed status; different contexts noted)
- Crespo v. Weber Stephen Products Co., 275 Ill. App.3d 638 (1995) (factors including control, hours, and transfer of supervision; multifactor approach)
- Emma v. Norris, 130 Ill. App.2d 653 (1970) (consent and appearance at borrowing facility support borrowed status)
- Mosley v. Northwestern Steel & Wire Co., 76 Ill. App.3d 710 (1979) (notes on changing work nature as a consideration in borrowing)