Articles Posted in Indemnification Claims

by

Tyler Dahlstrand, 28, was an iron worker employed at Midwest Steel Inc., which FCA US LLC hired as the contractor for a welding project at the Belvedere, Ill., assembly plant.

Dahlstrand was assigned to a night shift and worked above a wire mesh walkway with cut outs covered with unsecured plywood placed under welding blankets.

After climbing down a ladder and onto the mesh walkway, Dahlstrand tripped and fell, landing on a piece of plywood. His body twisted during the fall; he suffered a herniated disk at L4-5. He underwent physical therapy, injections and surgery.

Continue reading

by

In a federal district court matter, the district judge ruled that the obligation of a defendant who settled a negligence lawsuit wasn’t “uncollectible” and would not be reallocated between the remaining tortfeasors.

The Illinois Supreme Court, answering a question presented by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, concluded that “the obligation of a tortfeasor who settles is ‘not uncollectible’ within the meaning of Section 3.” Section 3 is part of the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act, which states that “no person shall be required to contribute to one seeking contribution an amount greater than his pro rata share,” except when “the obligation of one or more of the joint tortfeasors is uncollectible.”

Two of the seven Illinois Supreme Court justices dissented with a view that this ruling undermined the legislative goal of promoting settlements. The dissent stated that the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision “would likely require the General Assembly to revisit the Contribution Act.”

Continue reading

by

Eduardo Guzman was employed by TDH Mechanical, which provided heating, ventilation and air conditioning services. TDH bought an insurance policy from Columbia Insurance Group to cover the period from April 2016 through April 2017. Rockwell Properties owned a part of the property under construction in Chicago.

Prairie Management & Development was the construction manager at this property. In February 2017, Prairie and Rockwell contracted with TDH to provide HVAC services at this property.

The contract contained provisions stating that TDH assumed responsibility and liability for any damages or injury of any kind to all persons and all property growing out of TDH’s work on the project. The contract also specified that both Prairie and Rockwell were to be named as additional insureds on TDH’s insurance policy.

Continue reading

by

The issue in this case was whether there was insurance coverage for South Shore Iron Works under the $1 million auto policy GD Carriers purchased from National Casualty Co. This involved the injuries suffered by Julio Delgado, a GD employee, who fell from a parked flatbed trailer owned by South Shore Iron Works.

Delgado hooked GD’s tractor to South Shore’s trailer while it was being loaded with steel beams. He was scheduled to transport the beams to a construction project in Rochelle, Ill.

The tractor was covered under National Casualty’s insurance policy. The incident occurred allegedly because of South Shore’s negligence in positioning the beams. Apparently the beams were not secured when Delgado climbed onto the trailer to secure the load.

Continue reading

by

Reflection Window Co. filed in an attempt to limit its contribution liability to Power Construction Co. for an incident that injured Timothy Cooley who was an employee of Reflection Window. The incident occurred at a construction site where Power Construction was a general contractor.

Reflection Window had insisted that the judge was wrong in also ruling that it waived its lien under Section 5(b) of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. Reflection Window had conceded that the Cook County judge was correct in striking the affirmative defense it filed under Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp., 146 Ill.2d 155 (1991).

Power Construction sued Reflection Window for contribution after Cooley sued the general contractor for negligence.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Appellate Court of the 1st District resolved a discovery dispute in an insurance coverage lawsuit between plaintiff-insured Motorola Solutions Inc. and the defendant-insurers Zurich Insurance Co. and Associated Indemnity Corp. The court held that absent an applicable cooperation clause, attorney-client privilege applies to any appropriate documents.

This was an insurance coverage dispute between Motorola and the two insurance companies that had to do with several personal injury lawsuits brought by former employees and contractors who claimed they had been exposed to chemicals in “clean rooms” located in Motorola’s manufacturing facilities. It was argued that the court should require defendants to defend and absorb defense costs for these personal injury actions.

Continue reading

by

This case was brought as a declaratory judgment action filed by the plaintiff, Pekin Insurance Co., seeking a declaration that it owed the defendant Lexington Station LLC no duty to defend it in a personal injury lawsuit filed by Marcos Botello against Lexington.

Pekin had issued a commercial general liability (CGL) policy to ACC Inc. The defendant, Marcos Botello, was injured during the effective policy period while working as an employee of ACC on a development project owned by Lexington. Botello filed a personal injury lawsuit against Lexington. Lexington in turn tendered the defense of the case to Pekin, which refused to tender and then filed this declaratory judgment action. Pekin argued that it had no duty to defend Lexington as an additional insured under the policy issued to ACC.

Westfield Insurance Co., as Lexington’s own CGL insurer, intervened in the declaratory action and argued, along with Lexington, that Pekin did owe a duty to defendant. The circuit court denied Pekin’s motion for summary judgment and granted Lexington and Westfield’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that Pekin had a duty to defend Lexington. Pekin appealed.  It argued that the court’s entry of judgment in favor of Lexington and Westfield was in error because (1) Botello’s complaint did not contain allegations that created a potential for a claim of vicarious liability against Lexington; and (2) the circuit court improperly considered a third-party complaint in coming to its conclusion.

Continue reading

by

Heron Salgado, a construction worker, was employed by Abel Building & Restoration in January 2011 when he was assigned to work at a job site at 51st Street. He was working on a scaffold design that was built, erected and maintained by Designed Equipment Acquisition Corp. While he was working at that site, he was injured twice. Once on Jan. 17, 2011, Salgado was injured when a heavy bucket fell and struck him. Two days later he was injured again when he fell into an “opening” in the scaffolding.

Salgado filed a lawsuit against Designed Equipment in December 2012. Designed tendered its defense for this case first to its own insurance company and then to Pekin Insurance Co. who were Abel’s insurers, maintaining that Abel was an “additional insured” under Abel’s policy with Pekin.

Pekin rejected the tender of defense and filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment. Pekin first claimed that Designed was not an additional insured under the contractor’s endorsement and also that the lease between Abel and Designed was an “insured contract” and therefore void under the Construction Contract Indemnification for Negligence Act.

Continue reading

by

In a memorandum opinion written by a Cook County Circuit Court Chancery judge, it was ruled that an exhibit to the complaint did not control contrary allegations because the documents served as “mere evidence” rather than the foundation for a claim.

The judge’s opinion reflected that Illinois National Insurance Co. and American Home Assurance Co. filed the lawsuit as “subrogees of their insured Panduit Corp.” They claimed Arch Insurance Co. breached “its duty to indemnify Panduit” for an action in which Ronald Bayer allegedly “fell from a steel beam and was severely injured while working as an iron-worker for Area Erectors Inc.” at Panduit’s DeKalb, Ill., warehouse.

Bayer filed a lawsuit for his injury against Panduit and Garbe Iron Works. Panduit later filed a third-party complaint against Area Erectors for contribution.

Continue reading

by

On Oct. 16, 2007, union sprinkler fitter Frank Barnai was working at a Wal-Mart Store construction site in Joliet, Ill. He tripped over an electrical conduit protruding 6-12 inches from a concrete floor. Barnai was carrying a sprinkler pipe over his shoulder at the time of his fall. Barnai, 54, sustained a re-injury to his back. He had previously undergone lumbar fusion surgery at L4-5. As a result of this incident, Barnai underwent multiple revisions of the prior fusion and eventually required a multi-level spinal fusion from T-9 to S-1. Barnai is unable to return to work and is mostly confined to a wheelchair.

Barnai sued Wal-Mart, the owner, the general contractor, International Contractors Inc. and the company that installed the conduit, Nuline Technologies, for choosing not to inspect the work area for tripping hazards, failing to properly identify the tripping hazard, choosing not to mark the protruding conduit as a hazard and failing to ensure workers were not exposed to hazardous conditions.

The defendants contended that Barnai was contributorily negligent for not watching where he was walking and argued that he was aware of the dangerous conditions because he had walked past the area hundreds of times before he fell.

Continue reading