Background
Ramiro Godinez suffered fatal injuries after falling more than 20 feet at a Waukegan construction site while retrieving tools from a plywood box raised by a forklift. His estate filed a wrongful-death action against Stone Development Group, Inc. and others, alleging that Stone Development negligently managed, supervised, and inspected the worksite.
While the wrongful-death case was pending, Mt. Hawley Insurance Company filed this declaratory-judgment action, asserting that its commercial general liability and excess policies did not cover Stone Development because Godinez was its employee and the policies excluded bodily injury to employees arising from their employment or work-related duties. The declaratory action was stayed while the wrongful-death case proceeded. After the parties settled that case through an agreed $2.65 million judgment, with Mt. Hawley paying $250,000, they continued litigating the declaratory action to determine whether Mt. Hawley owed indemnity for the remaining judgment. Following a bench trial, the circuit court found that Godinez was a Stone Development employee and entered judgment for Mt. Hawley.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that the policy’s statement that “employee” includes a leased worker but excludes a temporary worker did not make the term ambiguous or provide an exhaustive definition. The circuit court therefore properly applied the word’s ordinary dictionary meaning, subject to those stated inclusions and exclusions.
The finding that Godinez was an employee was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Stone Development arranged for him to come to the site, obtained site access for the arriving carpenters, placed him under its foreman’s direction, and repeatedly identified him to OSHA as an employee before later disputing that characterization. This evidence supported an inference of mutual assent to employment even though Godinez had not completed paperwork, negotiated wages directly with the company, or begun carpentry work before the accident. The record also supported the finding that he was not a policy-defined temporary worker.
The circuit court also acted within its discretion by admitting factual portions of OSHA’s report under the public-records exception while declining to rely on OSHA’s opinions or conclusions. The estate did not overcome the report’s presumption of trustworthiness. Becerra’s statement to OSHA was also admissible as an employee’s statement concerning a matter within the scope of employment because evidence supported the finding that Stone Development continued employing him when he made it.
Key Takeaways
- A policy provision stating that “employee” includes one category and excludes another may supplement, rather than replace, the term’s ordinary meaning.
- Circumstantial evidence—including worksite arrangements, supervisory direction, and an insured’s statements to investigators—can establish an implied employment relationship.
- Factual findings from a legally authorized OSHA investigation may be admitted in a civil case when the opposing party does not show that the report is untrustworthy.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how Illinois courts evaluate employee exclusions in commercial liability policies when the worker’s hiring was informal and an accident occurred before regular work began. Formal paperwork or direct wage negotiations are not necessarily dispositive where the parties’ conduct supports an implied employment relationship.
The decision also underscores the potential coverage significance of an insured’s contemporaneous statements to workplace-safety investigators. Because this order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, it is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).