Wilda v. JLG Indus., Inc.
| Citation | 470 F.Supp.3d 770 |
| Decision Date | 02 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 16-cv-10088 |
| Parties | Patrick R. WILDA, individually, and as independent administrator of the Estate of Patrick C. Wilda, deceased, Plaintiff, v. JLG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. JLG Industries, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Illini Hi-Reach, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. Illini Hi-Reach, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Area Erectors, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Clifford Wolf Horwitz, Jay Richard Luchsinger, Michael T. Wierzbicki, Jr., Michael Dean Carter, Jr., Thomas Aquinas Kelliher, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, David James Starshak, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, Chicaog, IL, for Plaintiff.
Anthony J. Colucci, III, Ethan S. Notarius, Marybeth Priore Mantharam, Colucci & Gallaher, P.C., Buffalo, NY, Thomas D. Bransfield, Jeremiah F. Bransfield, Attorney at Law, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
This case involves a dispute about who will pay for a construction accident. Patrick C. Wilda suffered fatal injuries while working on a manlift to build a roof. His estate sued the manufacturer of the manlift, JLG Industries, for wrongful death and survival. JLG then filed a Third-Party Complaint against Illini Hi-Reach, the distributor of the manlift. Illini Hi-Reach, in turn, filed a Third-Party Complaint of its own against Area Erectors, the employer of the decedent.
The parties filed four motions for summary judgment. JLG and Illini Hi-Reach filed cross motions for summary judgment, and so did Illini Hi-Reach and Area Erectors. Each pair of motions involves a dispute about an indemnification provision in their respective contracts. JLG seeks indemnification from Illini Hi-Reach, and Illini Hi-Reach seeks indemnification from Area Erectors.
The Court concludes that JLG is entitled to indemnification from Illini Hi-Reach under their agreement, and thus grants JLG's motion for summary judgment and denies Illini Hi-Reach's motion for summary judgment against JLG. The Court denies the cross motions for summary judgment filed by Illini Hi-Reach and Area Erectors. Illini Hi-Reach relies on an indemnification provision in their agreement, but there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether Area Erectors ever received the second page of the contract with the indemnification provision. A jury needs to decide whether Area Erectors received a copy of the page with the indemnification provision.
Patrick Wilda was an ironworker for Area Erectors, a construction company. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 5 (Dckt. No. 222); JLG's Resp. to Illini Hi-Reach's Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 2 (Dckt. No. 216); see also Area Erectors, Inc., https://www.areaerectors.com (last visited July 1, 2020) (describing itself as a "structural steel and precast concrete erection service[ ]"). Wilda started working for the company in September 2014 at its construction site in Wilmington, Illinois. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 6 (Dckt. No. 222).
The accident took place while Wilda was working on a manlift. As the name suggests, a manlift is a "self-propelled hydraulic personnel lift equipped with a work platform on the end of an elevating and rotating boom." See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to JLG's Additional Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 17 (Dckt. No. 229).
JLG manufactured the manlift in question. See id. at ¶ 14; Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 1 (Dckt. No. 222). JLG delivered the manlift to Illini Hi-Reach, one of its distributors. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 2 (Dckt. No. 222); Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to JLG's Additional Statement of Material Facts, at ¶¶ 14–15 (Dckt. No. 229). Illini Hi-Reach is a rental business that rents and sells aerial lift equipment. See JLG's Resp. to Illini Hi-Reach's Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 4 (Dckt. No. 216); Area Erectors's Resp. to Illini Hi-Reach's Rule 56.1 Statement of Additional Material Facts, at ¶ 4 (Dckt. No. 234). The two companies have a long-running business relationship. Illini Hi-Reach became a distributor of JLG equipment in 2000. See JLG's Resp. to Illini Hi-Reach's Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 17 (Dckt. No. 216); Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to JLG's Additional Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 2 (Dckt. No. 229).
JLG and Illini Hi-Reach entered into a rental purchase option agreement (the "RPO Agreement") for the manlift at issue.1 See JLG's Resp. to Illini Hi-Reach's Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 5 (Dckt. No. 216); Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to JLG's Additional Statement of Material Facts, at ¶¶ 8–9 (Dckt. No. 229). The agreement included an indemnification provision that required Illini Hi-Reach to indemnify and defend JLG for certain damages arising from the manlift. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to JLG's Additional Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 11 (Dckt. No. 229); RPO Agreement, at 2 (Dckt. No. 49-2).
Illini Hi-Reach, in turn, rented the manlift to Area Erectors to use at its Wilmington jobsite. See JLG's Resp. to Illini Hi-Reach's Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 3 (Dckt. No. 216); Area Erectors's Resp. to Illini Hi-Reach's Rule 56.1 Statement of Additional Material Facts, at ¶ 3 (Dckt. No. 234). Illini Hi-Reach delivered the manlift to the construction site on September 26, 2014, shortly after Wilda joined Area Erectors. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 3 (Dckt. No. 222).
Wilda's accident took place on January 30, 2015. Id. at ¶¶ 11–12. The parties don't offer many details about what, exactly, happened. Wilda climbed aboard the manlift and elevated himself to the roof, where he needed to bolt together steel roof joists. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to JLG's Additional Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 80 (Dckt. No. 229); Area Erectors's Motion for Entry of Good Faith Finding, at 1–2 (Dckt. No. 150-4). He was alone. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to JLG's Additional Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 80 (Dckt. No. 229).
Disaster struck. Wilda became pinned between a roof joist and the manlift's control panel. Id. He suffered fatal injuries. See Area Erectors's Motion for Entry of Good Faith Finding, at 2 (Dckt. No. 150-4); see also Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 12 (Dckt. No. 222). No one witnessed the accident. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to JLG's Additional Statement of Material Facts, at ¶ 80 (Dckt. No. 229).
Wilda's estate filed a wrongful death and survival suit against a number of defendants, including JLG, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶¶ 13–15 (Dckt. No. 222). The estate sued JLG for its role in manufacturing and designing an allegedly defective manlift. Id. at ¶ 14. Three of the other named defendants – Ridge Lego Partners, LLC, Ledcor Construction, Inc., and Construction Systems – filed a Third-Party Complaint against Area Erectors as Wilda's employer. Id. at ¶ 15.
The parties went to mediation and settled almost all of Wilda's claims. Id. at ¶ 16. JLG was the only party that did not join the settlement. Id. at ¶ 17.
As part of the settlement agreement, Wilda's estate agreed to release Ridge Lego Partners, Ledcor Construction, Construction Systems, and third-party defendant Area Erectors for a total of $600,000. Id. at ¶¶ 18–19; Release and Settlement Agreement, at 2 (Dckt. No. 150-3). Area Erectors agreed to pay $240,000 of that amount to settle any claims by Wilda's estate. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 19 (Dckt. No. 222). Area Erectors agreed to waive its workers’ compensation lien, too. Id. Area Erectors also paid $160,000 to settle the third-party claims by Ridge Lego Partners, Ledcor Construction, and Construction Systems. Id. at ¶ 20.
After the settlement, Area Erectors filed a motion for an entry of good faith under the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act in state court. Id. at ¶ 21. The Act creates a statutory right to contribution when more than two parties are liable for "the same injury to person or property, or the same wrongful death." See 740 ILCS 100/2. The Act also shields any tortfeasor who settles such a claim in good faith "from all liability for any contribution to any other tortfeasor." See 740 ILCS 100/2(d). Area Erectors argued that its $400,000 payment and the waiver of its workers’ compensation lien was evidence of a good faith settlement, and that the Circuit Court should dismiss the company "from any contribution action against it." See Area Erectors's Motion for Entry of Good Faith Finding, at 3, 5 (Dckt. No. 150-4).
On October 26, 2016, the Circuit Court of Cook County dismissed Area Erectors and the three other settling defendants. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 22 (Dckt. No. 222); see also Dismissal Order dated 10/26/16 (Dckt. No. 1-5). The state court found that the settlement was "entered into in good faith pursuant to the provisions of the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act." See Dismissal Order dated 10/26/16, at ¶ 1 (Dckt. No. 1-5). At that point, JLG was the last remaining defendant. See Illini Hi-Reach's Resp. to Area Erectors's Amended Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, at ¶ 23 (Dckt. No. 222).
JLG removed this case to federal court the very next day based on the diversity of citizenship.2 Id. at ¶ 24; see also Notice of Removal (Dckt....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahvakana v. United States
...extent that it does, the Court applies the Government's arguments instead to the judicial admission that six months had elapsed. [35] 470 F.Supp.3d 770, 792 (N.D. Ill. 2020). [36] Id. [37] 957 F.3d 357, 361 (2d Cir. 2020). [38] Id. at 358. [39] Id. at 361. [40] 77 Fed. App'x 427, 430-31 (9t......
-
BP Prods. N. Am. v. ExxonMobil Corp.
... 1 BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC., Plaintiff, v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 19-CV-3288 (PKC) (ST) United States ... Templeton , 505 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir ... 2007) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith ... Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)) ... fundamental difference between insurers and ... noninsurers.” Wilda v. JLG Indus., Inc. , 470 ... F.Supp.3d 770, 787 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (internal quotation marks ... ...
-
Budzyn v. KFC Corp.
...an expressly-required condition-precedent of an agreement will their absence render the contract voidable.” Wilda v. JLG Indus., Inc., 470 F.Supp.3d 770, 799 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (Seeger, J.) (citation omitted). In other words, even if parental signatures were a condition precedent, the Arbitra......
-
Central National Gottesman Inc. v. J.S. Paluch Co., Inc.
... ... And further, the Court has discretion to relieve a party of ... its judicial admissions. Keller , 1194 at 1198 n.8; ... Wilda v. JLG Indus., Inc. , 470 F.Supp.3d 770, 792 ... (N.D. Ill. 2020) ... Some of ... the “admissions” identified by JSP ... ...