Thomas v. Brinks Inc
2:19-cv-01224
E.D. Wis.Jan 28, 2020Background
- Plaintiff (Wisconsin citizen) was rear-ended in Illinois by Jovani Garcia, an Illinois resident employed by Brinks, Inc.; Plaintiff sued in Wisconsin federal court after removal on diversity grounds.
- Claims: negligence against Brinks (respondeat superior), negligent hiring/training/supervision, and a direct action against Brinks’ insurer Baldwin & Lyons under Wisconsin law.
- Brinks conceded vicarious liability for Garcia’s conduct but defended the additional negligent-hiring claim; Baldwin contended Illinois law bars a direct action against an insurer absent a judgment against the insured.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing Wisconsin choice-of-law rules point to Illinois law, which would render the negligent-hiring claim duplicative and preclude a direct action against the insurer.
- The Court applied Wisconsin choice-of-law principles, concluded Illinois law governs, granted the motions: negligent-hiring claim dismissed with prejudice; claims against Baldwin dismissed without prejudice and Baldwin dismissed from the case.
- The Court ordered Plaintiff to, within 21 days, either justify the continued inclusion of involuntary plaintiffs under Illinois law or dismiss them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law | Wisconsin law should govern | Illinois law should govern given the accident and contacts in Illinois | Illinois law governs under Wisconsin choice-of-law analysis |
| Viability of negligent hiring claim when respondeat superior conceded | Negligent-hiring claim is permitted (Wisconsin law) | Under Illinois law negligent hiring is duplicative and should be barred if respondeat superior applies | Negligent-hiring claim dismissed with prejudice as duplicative under Illinois law |
| Direct action against insurer (Baldwin) | Wisconsin law permits direct action against insurer in negligence suits | Illinois law allows suit against insurer only after judgment against insured | Claims against Baldwin dismissed without prejudice; Baldwin dismissed from action |
| Status of involuntary plaintiffs added under Wis. Stat. § 803.03 | Inclusion justified under Wisconsin statute | Under Illinois law the basis is unclear; defendants challenge their presence | Court ordered Plaintiff to show basis under Illinois law or dismiss involuntary plaintiffs within 21 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Gant v. L.U. Trans., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 1155 (Ill. Ct. App. 2002) (negligent-hiring claim is duplicative when respondeat superior applies)
- Direct Auto Ins. Co. v. Bahena, 131 N.E.3d 1094 (Ill. Ct. App. 2019) (no direct action against insurer absent judgment against insured)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gillette, 641 N.W.2d 662 (Wis. 2002) (Wisconsin tort choice-influencing factors framework)
- Glaeske v. Shaw, 661 N.W.2d 420 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (forum presumption and choice-of-law analysis in torts)
- Conklin v. Horner, 157 N.W.2d 579 (Wis. 1968) (application of forum law where accident occurred in forum state)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard under Rule 8 requires plausible claim)
- Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 218 N.W.2d 233 (Wis. Ct. App.) (description of negligent-hiring/supervision doctrine)