Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MUSA EZEIRIG, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
) No. LACV120368
)
vs. )
) AMENDED PETITION AT LAW
RYAN HOENICKE, DANIELLE WILLIAMS, ) and JURY DEMAND
CLEO BOYD, ALLEN FINCHUM, )
TERRY VAN HUYSEN, JIM BAILEY )
TPI IOWA, LLC, TPI COMPOSITES, INC. )
and INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF )
PENNSYLVANIA )
)
Defendants. )
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Musa Ezeirig, by and through the undersigned counsel, and
hereby files this Petition at Law against Defendants TPI Composites, Inc., TPI Iowa, LLC, Ryan
Hoenicke, Danielle Williams, Cleo Boyd, Allen Finchum, Terry Van Huysen, and Jim Bailey
(Defendants). Plaintiff alleges upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts, and
upon information and belief based upon the investigation of counsel as to all other matters, as
follows:
PARTIES
1. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Musa Ezeirig (Ezeirig) was a resident of
Polk or Jasper County, Iowa, and employed by Defendant TPI Iowa, LLC a Delaware limited
liability company.
2. At all times material hereto, and upon information and belief, Defendant TPI
Composites, Inc. (TPI Composites) was a corporation registered with the Secretary of State of
3. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Ryan
Hoenicke was employed by TPI Iowa as an Environmental Health and Safety Manager, and a
4. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Danielle
5. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Cleo Boyd
6. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Terry Van
Huysen was employed by TPI Iowa as the general manager, and a resident of Polk County, Iowa.
7. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Allen
8. Upon information and belief, at times material hereto, Defendant Jim Bailey was
10. These are gross negligence, fraud, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith
and fair dealing, negligence, joint venture, negligent inspection, failure to inspect, and punitive
damage claims, and this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this cause
of action.
11. Venue is proper in Jasper County pursuant to Iowa Code Section 616.18.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 12:01 PM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
14. TPI Composites is a wind blade manufacturing business having one of its
15. TPI Iowa is a wind blade manufacturing business located at 2300 N. 33rd Ave.,
Newton, Iowa.
16. TPI Composites holds itself out as the largest U.S. based independent
18. TPI Iowa employs hundreds of employees at the Newton, Iowa manufacturing
plant.
19. At all material times hereto, Ezeirig was a prospective, current or former
20. As a part of the wind blade manufacturing process, TPI Iowas employees work
21. During his employment at TPI Iowa, Ezeirig worked with hazardous chemicals
22. TPI Iowas employees work with Dry Layup Adhesives while manufacturing the
wind blades.
23. TPI Iowas employees work with a hazardous Curing Agent while manufacturing
24. TPI Iowas employees work with a hazardous Resin while manufacturing the
wind blades.
E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 12:01 PM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
25. In addition to the Adhesives, Curing Agent and Resin, TPI Employees work with
other toxic chemicals (Adhesives, Resin, Curing Agent & other chemicals collectively referred to
as Chemicals).
26. The Dry Layup Adhesives are flammable liquefied gases and/or vapors.
27. The Dry Layup Adhesives are known to cause adverse target organ effects, birth
defects, other reproductive harm, eye irritation, skin irritation, respiratory tract irritation, cardiac
28. The Resin is known to cause skin corrosion or irritation, serious eye damage, skin
sensitization, cancer, damage to fertility, damage to the unborn child, respiratory irritation, and
29. The Curing Agent is can be toxic following a single oral or dermal exposure.
30. The Curing Agent is classified can cause skin corrosion or irritation, serious eye
damage, damage to fertility, and allergy or asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled.
32. Since August 13, 2008, TPI Iowa, LLC has documented approximately three
hundred fifty (350) injuries on its Iowa OSHA logs caused by Chemical exposure to its
35. Ezeirigs work duties at TPI included, but were not limited to the molding
department, where Ezeirig would enter wind blades and apply chemicals to the wind blades.
37. Ezeirig was not provided with sufficient PPE to protect him from the known
38. The PPE provided to the Ezeirig did not prevent exposure, inhalation, or
39. Defendants knew that Ezeirig was not provided with sufficient protective
40. While employed at TPI Iowa, Ezeirig reported to Defendants that his skin was
41. At the time Ezeirig initially reported his symptoms, Ezeirig was not sent to a
doctor.
was administered by non-medical professionals, and consisted of applying lotions and bandages
43. At the time Ezeirig reported his symptoms, employees at TPI Iowa also instructed
44. To date, Ezeirig continues to suffer adverse symptoms from the Chemicals.
45. Ezeirig itches all over his body as a result of the Chemical exposure.
46. Ezeirig continues to break out with bumps and rashes on his body as a result of
48. Defendants each owed a duty of care to Ezeirig while Ezeirig was working in the
50. Defendants each had knowledge and understood that the Chemicals used by
51. Defendants each knew that it was probable, and not merely possible, that Ezeirig
52. Defendants each consciously failed to avoid the danger of Ezeirig suffering
53. Ezeirig suffered damages as a result of his injuries caused by the Chemicals.
COUNT II FRAUD
55. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that as an employee, Ezeirig
56. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that his health and safety
was a primary consideration in every company decision and plan made by TPI Composites and
TPI Iowa.
57. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they were committed to
58. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they would provide him
59. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they had established
60. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they provide training to
61. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they would ensure that
he would work in an environment that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause
62. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that if he suffered an injury,
they would send him to a doctor to determine if the injury was work-related.
63. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they had established a
safety committee to enforce safety policies and prevent accidents and injuries in areas of safety
concern.
64. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that the materials he worked
with at were not dangerous if he wore the PPE provided by TPI Composites and TPI Iowa.
65. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that allergic contact
66. The representations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs fifty-five (55)
67. The misrepresentations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs fifty-five (55)
68. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa made the misrepresentations to Ezeirig with the
69. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa made the misrepresentations to Ezeirig with the
intent to deceive him so that he would continue to work at TPI Iowa after he accepted
employment.
70. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa made the misrepresentations to Ezeirig with the
intent to deceive him so that they could employ him and fulfill production expectations for which
71. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa made the misrepresentations to Ezeirig with the
intent to deceive him so that they could make a monetary profit at the expense of Ezeirigs
misrepresentations by continuing to work at TPI Iowa for more than two years.
74. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa knew that their misrepresentations were false given
that they had reported hundreds of chemical injuries in their Iowa OSHA logs prior to Ezeirigs
injury.
75. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa knew that their misrepresentations were false given
their systematic practice of hiring healthy employees and then terminating them from
76. TPI Iowa used Iowas workers compensation statute to perpetrate the fraud
77. Ezeirig suffered damages when he was permanently injured due to exposure to the
78. Ezeirig suffered damages when he was terminated by TPI Iowa from
employment.
80. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Ezeirig communicated to Ezeirig that it would
81. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Ezeirig communicated to Ezeirig that TPI
82. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Ezeirig communicated to Ezeirig that TPI
83. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Ezeirig communicated to Ezeirig that TPI
Iowa would provide him with a work environment that was free from recognized hazards that
84. Ezeirig accepted TPI Iowas offer for employment by commencing employment
in November of 2013 and working continuously at TPI Iowa for approximately two years.
85. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Ezeirig by failing to provide Ezeirig with a
86. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Ezeirig by failing to establish and/or
87. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Ezeirig by failing to provide Ezeirig with a
work environment that was free from recognized hazards that result in serious harm.
89. The damages sustained by Ezeirig were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
91. TPI Iowa failed to act in good faith with respect to its offer for employment to
Ezeirig.
92. TPI Iowa failed to act in good faith with respect to its employment relationship
with Ezeirig.
93. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
94. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
95. Ezeirig suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach of implied covenant of
96. The damages sustained by Ezeirig were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
98. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are an association of two entities engaged in the
99. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are engaged in a common undertaking.
100. TPI Composites and TPI Iowas wind blade manufacturing businesses enterprise
101. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a joint proprietary interest in their for profit
business enterprises.
102. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a mutual right to control their for profit
business enterprises.
103. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a right to share in the profits of their for profit
business enterprises.
104. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a duty to share in the losses of their for profit
business enterprises.
107. TPI Iowa was negligent in facility to provide Ezeirig with a safe workplace
environment.
110. TPI Composites is liable to Ezeirig for his damages proximately caused by TPI
Iowas negligence.
COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE
112. TPI Composites owed Ezeirig a duty to provide him with a safe workplace.
113. TPI Composites was negligent in failing to provide Ezeirig with a safe workplace
environment.
119. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as a means of perpetrating fraud against Ezeirig.
120. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as an unfair device to perpetrate fraud against
Ezeirig.
121. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as a means to attempt to avoid its legal obligation
122. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa to circumvent liability under Iowas
discrimination statutes.
123. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa to circumvent liability under Iowas workers
compensation statutes.
124. TPI Iowa was used primarily by TPI Composites as a means to promote fraud and
injustice.
E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 12:01 PM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
126. While Ezeirig was employed at TPI Iowa, Insurance Company State of
consideration, an inspection(s) that it should have recognized as necessary for the protection of
Ezeirig.
128. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Ezeirig for physical harm
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because its failure
129. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Ezeirig for physical harm
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because the harm
to Ezeirig was suffered because of reliance of TPI Composites, TPI Iowa or Ezeirig upon the
undertaking.
130. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Ezeirig for physical harm
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because it
undertook to perform a duty owed by TPI Composites and TPI Iowa to Ezeirig.
131. Ezeirig incorporates paragraphs 1 through 130 of the Petition as if fully set forth
herein.
E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 12:01 PM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
132. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania owed a duty to Ezeirig to inspect the
133. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania failed to inspect the premises at TPI
Iowa.
134. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvanias failure to inspect the premises at TPI
135. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Ezeirig for the damages
suffered by Ezeirig as a result of its failure to inspect the premises at TPI Iowa.
136. Defendants took the actions in paragraphs 1 through 124 above with the willful
137. The actions described in paragraphs 1 through 125 entitle Ezeirig to punitive
damages.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Ezeirig requests judgment be entered in his favor and against
Defendant TPI Composites, TPI Iowa, LLC, Hoenicke, Williams, Boyd, Finchum, Van Huysen,
Bailey, and Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania, and that the Court order the Defendants
I. Punitive damages;
J. Any other element of loss recognized by Iowa law not specifically set forth
herein;
K. Any other additional and further relief that the Court deems proper.
JURY DEMAND
Respectfully Submitted,