M & M Elec. Co. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 29 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. 45494,45494
• Citation: 57 Ill.2d 113,311 N.E.2d 161
• Parties: M & M ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellees, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. Appeal of Timothy J. McGINN et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 161

311 N.E.2d 161

57 Ill.2d 113

M & M ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellees, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. Appeal of Timothy J. McGINN et al.

No. 45494.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 29, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1974.

Jay A. Baier and William J. Harte, Chicago, for appellants.

Klohr, Braun, Lynch & Smith, Chicago (Mark A. Braun, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

Hackbert, Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar & Poust, Chicago (Douglas F. Stevenson and William M. Stevens, Chicago, of counsel), for cross-appellant.

DAVIS, Justice:

This is a workmen's compensation action brought by Timothy J. McGinn against M & M Electric Company and its insurance carrier, Indiana Insurance Company, based upon an accident which occurred at the steel mill of Northwestern Steel and Wire Company (Northwestern) located at Sterling, Illinois. Northwestern had submitted a purchase order to M & M Electric for the performance of certain heavy-duty electrical work involved in changing over to a new electric furnace. McGinn fell from a height of approximately 30 feet while on the job, and is now a paraplegic. There is no controversy as to McGinn's physical disabilities.

M & M and its insurance carrier brought Northwestern into the workmen's compensation action by way of a 'cross-claim,' alleging that Northwestern was a borrowing employer, and therefore was primarily liable for the payment of workmen's compensation benefits, making M & M only secondarily liable. This cross-claim was opposed by claimant McGinn and Northwestern.

The hearings before the arbitrator and the Industrial Commission were largely directed to the issue of whether or not Northwestern was a borrowing employer. The arbitrator found that it was not a borrowing employer and dismissed Northwestern from the case. The Industrial Commission, after hearing further evidence, sustained the decision of the arbitrator and adopted it as the decision of the Commission. M & M then brought a petition for writ of Certiorari in the circuit court of Whiteside County, and that court reversed the decision of the Commission, holding that Northwestern was a borrowing employer as a matter of law. This appeal is from the decision of the circuit court.

The loaned-employee concept has been specifically incorporated into the Illinois Workmen's Compensation Act as section 1(a)4 of that act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 48, par. 138.1(a)(4)), as follows:

'(a) The term 'employer' as used in this Act shall be construed to be:

4. Where an employer operating under and subject to the provisions of this Act loans an employee to another such employer and such loaned employee sustains a compensable accidental injury in the employment of such borrowing employer and where such borrowing employer does not provide or pay the benefits or payments due such injured employee, such loaning employer shall be liable to provide or pay all benefits or payments due such employee under this Act and as to such employee the liability of such loaning and borrowing employers shall be joint and several, provided that such loaning employer shall in the absence of agreement to the contrary be entitled to receive from such borrowing employer full reimbursement for all sums paid or incurred pursuant to this paragraph together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses in any hearings before the Industrial Commission or in any action to secure such reimbursement. Where any benefit is provided or paid by such loaning employer the employee has the duty of rendering reasonable cooperation in any hearings, trials or proceedings in the case, including such proceedings for reimbursement.

Where an employee files an Application for Adjustment of Claim with the Industrial Commission alleging that his claim is covered by the provisions of the preceding paragraph, and joining both the alleged loaning and borrowing employers, they and each of them, upon written demand by the employee and within seven days after receipt of such demand, shall have the duty of filing with the Industrial Commission a written admission or denial of the allegation that the claim is covered by the provisions of the preceding paragraph and in default of such filing or if any such denial be ultimately determined not to have been bona fide then the provisions of Paragraph K of Section 19 of this Act shall apply.

An employer whose business or enterprise or a substantial part thereof consists of hiring, procuring or furnishing employees to or for other employers operating under and subject to the provisions of this Act for the performance of the work of such other employers and who pays such employees their salary or wages notwithstanding that they are doing the work of such other employers shall be deemed a loaning employer within the meaning and provisions of this section.'

We have previously recognized that the primary test for establishing a loaned-employee relationship is the right to control. In Raymond Concrete Pile Co. v. Industrial Com. (1967), 37 Ill.2d 512, at pages 516 and 517, 229 N.E.2d 673, at page 675 we stated: 'In identifying the employer of a loaned employee the dominant circumstance has been the right to control the manner in which the work is to be done. (See E.g., American Stevedores Co. v. Industrial Com., 408 Ill. 449, 454, 97 N.E.2d 325; Fransen Construction Co. v. Industrial Com., 384 Ill. 616, 52 N.E.2d 241; Allen-Garcia Co. v. Industrial Com., 334 Ill. 390, 166 N.E. 78.) Stated in more abstract terms, the most significant inquiry has concerned the extent to which the loaning employer delegated to the borrowing employer the right to control the manner of...