Ioerger v. Halverson Const. Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 December 2008
• Docket Number: No. 105912.,No. 105917.,105912.,105917.
• Citation: 902 N.E.2d 645,232 Ill.2d 196
• Parties: Daniel IOERGER et al., Appellees, v. HALVERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. (Midwest Foundation Corporation, Appellant).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

902 N.E.2d 645

232 Ill.2d 196

Daniel IOERGER et al., Appellees, v. HALVERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. (Midwest Foundation Corporation, Appellant).

No. 105912.

No. 105917.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

December 18, 2008.

Rehearing Denied January 26, 2009.

Gregory A. Cerulo, Adam P. Chaddock, of Quinn, Johnston, Henderson & Pretorius, Peoria, for appellant Halverson Construction Company.

Cassiday & Mueller, Peoria (David B. Mueller, of counsel), for appellant joint venture.

Daniel V. O'Connor, Jeffrey S. Jordan, of Anesi, Ozmon, Rodin, Novak & Kohen, Ltd., Chicago, for appellees.

Stacey E. Lynch, of the Dorris Law Firm, PC, Bloomington, for amicus curiae Illinois Trial Lawyers Association.

OPINION

Justice KARMEIER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:

The issue in this case is whether the immunity afforded to an employer by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 305/5(a), 11 (West 2000)) extends to the employer's co-venturer in a joint venture and to the joint venture itself. The circuit court held that it does. The appellate court reversed and remanded. 377 Ill. App.3d 223, 315 Ill.Dec. 921, 878 N.E.2d 147. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the appellate court's judgment, affirm the judgment of the circuit court, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.

The relevant facts are these. During the summer of 1999, Midwest Foundation Corporation (Midwest) entered into a joint venture (hereinafter, the Joint Venture) with Halverson Construction Company, Inc. (Halverson), in connection with a project undertaken by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to repair the McCluggage Bridge over the Illinois River in Peoria. The terms of this business arrangement were set forth in a written agreement between Midwest and Halverson. The agreement provided that Midwest and Halverson "constitute[d] themselves as joint venturers for the purpose of submitting joint bids * * * for the performance of the construction contracts herein before described, and for the further purpose of performing and completing such construction project." If the bids were awarded, they were to be "entered into in the names of the parties as joint venturers."

Under the agreement, profits and losses and liabilities resulting from the project were to be shared 60/40, with the larger share going to Midwest. The agreement required Midwest and Halverson to each make periodic contributions of working capital to the Joint Venture in proportion to their respective share of the profits and losses. It also specified how various responsibilities and costs were to be allocated.

Pursuant to the agreement, Midwest was responsible for "the performance of all labor for the Joint Venture, including payroll, payroll taxes, fringes and other employee expenses, including, but not limited to, the establishment of worker[s'] compensation insurance and the payments of all premiums therefore." Correspondingly, Midwest was "entitled to reimbursement from the Joint Venture for the costs incurred in performing the foregoing obligations; such reimbursement to be paid at such time or times as the Joint Venture shall determine."

IDOT accepted the Joint Venture's bid and the Joint Venture began work on the bridge project. In accordance with the joint venture agreement, Midwest furnished workmen for the project. Throughout the course of the project, Midwest would pay the labor costs, including workers' compensation insurance premiums, then submit statements to the Joint Venture for reimbursement.

Among the workers employed by Midwest on the bridge project were ironworkers Daniel Ioerger, Randy McCombs, Robert L. Foulks, Sr., and Ralph Bill. On April 24, 2000, while the four were working from a platform suspended above the river, the platform collapsed, causing them to plummet into the river below. Ioerger, McCombs and Bill were injured. Foulks was killed.

Ioerger, McCombs, Bill and Robert Lamar Foulks, as administrator of the estate of Robert L. Foulks, Sr. (hereinafter referred to collectively as plaintiffs), each applied for and received workers' compensation benefits through Midwest's workers' compensation insurer. It is undisputed that these workers' compensation benefits were plaintiffs' exclusive remedy with respect to Midwest and that sections 5(a) and 11 of the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/5(a), 11 (West 2000)) precluded plaintiffs from bringing a common law action for negligence against Midwest in circuit court. See Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill.2d 455, 462-63, 151 Ill.Dec. 560, 564 N.E.2d 1222 (1990).

In addition to seeking workers' compensation benefits from Midwest, plaintiffs brought a civil action in the circuit court of Peoria County against Halverson, the Joint Venture, and various other defendants to recover damages for injuries they sustained as a result of the accident. Their complaint, as amended, contained more than 40 counts. Counts I through V were directed against Halverson. Counts I, II, and V, brought on behalf of Ioerger, McCombs and Bill, respectively, alleged negligence. In counts III and IV, Robert Lamar Foulks, as administrator of the estate of Robert L. Foulks, Sr., asserted claims under the Wrongful Death Act (see 740 ILCS 180/0.01 et seq. (West 2000)) and the Survival Act (755 ILCS 5/27-6 (West 2000)). Counts XI through XV paralleled counts I through V, but were directed against the Joint Venture rather than Halverson. All the remaining counts involved other defendants and are not relevant to this appeal.

Halverson and the Joint Venture filed separate motions for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2000)), arguing that as co-venturers with Midwest, they are cloaked with the same immunity enjoyed by Midwest under the Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in their favor. In so doing, it made an express written finding pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210 Ill.2d R. 304(a)) that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal.

Plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded, with one justice dissenting. 377 Ill.App.3d 223, 315 Ill.Dec. 921, 878 N.E.2d 147. Halverson and the Joint Venture each petitioned for leave to appeal. 210 Ill.2d R. 315. We granted both parties' petitions and consolidated them for briefing, argument and decision.¹

Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2000). Whether summary judgment was properly granted in a particular case is a matter we review de novo. Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill.2d 404, 416-17, 320 Ill.Dec. 784, 888 N.E.2d 1 (2008).

Under the express terms of the Workers' Compensation Act, the law's exclusive remedy provisions extend not only to the employer, but to various other specified entities, including agents of the employer. 820 ILCS 305/5(a) (West 2000). The question of whether an agency relationship exists is normally a question of fact. A court may decide the issue as a matter of law, however, if only one conclusion may be drawn from the undisputed facts. See Churkey v. Rustia, 329 Ill. App.3d 239, 243, 263 Ill.Dec. 761, 768 N.E.2d 842 (2002). This is such a case.

As described earlier in this opinion, Halverson was a co-venturer with Midwest. Under Illinois law, joint ventures are governed by partnership principles, "for a joint venture is essentially a partnership carried on for a single enterprise." In re Johnson, 133 Ill.2d 516, 526, 142 Ill.Dec. 112, 552 N.E.2d 703 (1989); see Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill.2d 427, 438, 31 Ill.Dec. 178, 394 N.E.2d 380 (1979) ("[w]hen a joint venture is found to exist, the legal principles pertaining to the relationship between partners govern"). Partners, in turn, are agents of the partnership and of one another for purposes of the business. That is so both as a matter of common law and under the Uniform Partnership Act, which Illinois has adopted (see 805 ILCS 205/1 et seq. (West 2000)). See Gilpin v. Lev, 70 Ill.App.2d 66, 75, 217 N.E.2d 477 (1966). As a co-venturer with Midwest, Halverson was therefore Midwest's agent. Because Halverson was Midwest's agent, it was, in turn, entitled to invoke the same immunity afforded to Midwest by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/5(a), 11 (West 2000)). Smith v. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 77 Ill.2d 313, 318, 33 Ill.Dec. 135, 396 N.E.2d 524 (1979); see Moran v. Gust K. Newberg/Dugan & Meyers, 268 Ill.App.3d 999, 1005-06, 206 Ill.Dec. 484, 645 N.E.2d 489 (1994). Accordingly, the circuit court was correct to grant Halverson's motion for summary judgment based on the Act.

Our conclusion is the same with respect to the Joint Venture itself. That is so for two reasons. The first is inherent in the nature of the joint venture form of business organization. While a partnership is treated as a separate entity for purposes of owning property, it is not a separate legal entity. Because joint ventures are governed by partnership principles, the same is true of them. See Palumbo Bros., Inc. v. Wagner, 293 Ill.App.3d 756, 766, 228 Ill.Dec. 139, 688 N.E.2d 837 (1997). The Joint Venture in this case was thus inseparable from its constituent entities, Midwest and Halverson. Both of those entities being immunized by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, it necessarily follows that the Joint Venture was likewise shielded by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act.

Allowing the Joint Venture to invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act is also mandated by the principles underlying the Act's remedial scheme. We observed in ...