Taylor et al v. Cottrell, Inc. et al, No. 4:2009cv00536 - Document 537 (E.D. Mo. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, [Doc No 476 ], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 12/17/15. (KJS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor et al v. Cottrell, Inc. et al Doc. 537 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TIMMY A. TAYLOR and DEBORAH TAYLOR, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) COTTRELL, INC. and AUTO HANDLING ) CORP., ) ) Defendants. ) Case No. 4:09CV536 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Auto Handling Corp.’s Partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, [Doc. No. 476]. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. Defendant Auto Handling Corp. moves to dismiss Count XI (negligence claim by Timmy Taylor related to the January 12, 2010 accident) and Count XIII (loss of consortium claim by Deborah Taylor as a result of the January 12, 2010 accident) as barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. Defendant claims that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. The Court has previously concluded that Illinois law is applicable to the January 12, 2010. The Illinois Supreme Court has considered this issue and has determined that the exclusivity provision of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act Dockets.Justia.com is in the nature of an affirmative defense. “[E]mployers, despite their immunity provided by the Workers' Compensation Act, are still subject to liability in tort because the protection of the Workers' Compensation Act is in the nature of an affirmative defense that must be raised in the trial court if the plaintiff brings a suit. Doyle, 101 Ill.2d at 10, 77 Ill.Dec. 759, 461 N.E.2d 382; see also Braye v. Archer– Daniels–Midland Co., 175 Ill.2d 201, 207–08, 222 Ill.Dec. 91, 676 N.E.2d 1295 (1997) (section 5(a) of the Workers' Compensation Act is in the nature of an affirmative defense that may be waived by the employer); Geise v. Phoenix Co. of Chicago, Inc., 159 Ill.2d 507, 514, 203 Ill.Dec. 454, 639 N.E.2d 1273 (1994) (same).” Unzicker v. Kraft Food Ingredients Corp., 203 Ill. 2d 64, 77, 783 N.E.2d 1024, 1033 (2002). See also Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Grp., Ltd., No. 10 C 7811, 2014 WL 812401, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2014)(“the IWCA preemption defense, . . .’is an affirmative one ...[,] which is waived if not asserted by [the employer].’ Doe v. Lee, 943 F.Supp.2d 870, 879–80 (N.D.Ill.2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Doyle v. Rhodes, 461 N.E.2d 382, 386, 101 Ill.2d 1, 77 Ill.Dec. 759 (1984))”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant=s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 2 Subject Matter Jurisdiction, [Doc. No. 476], is denied. Dated this 17th day of December, 2015. _______________________________ HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
