Clark Petition

E-FILED 2017 SEP 28 4:44 PM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY
DILLON CLARK, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
) No. ________________
)
vs. )
) PETITION AT LAW and
TPI COMPOSITES, INC., TPI IOWA, LLC ) JURY DEMAND
RYAN HOENICKE, DANIELLE WILLIAMS, )
CLEO BOYD, TERRY VAN HUYSEN, )
ALLEN FINCHUM, MATT MARTIN )
BARB SINNOTT, JIM BAILEY, )
DAVID LLOYD and INSURANCE )
COMPANY FOR THE STATE OF )
PENNSYLVANIA )
Defendants. )
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Dillon Clark, 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, Terry Van Huysen, Allen Finchum, Matt Martin, Barb
Sinnott, Jim Bailey and David Lloyd (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 Dillon Clark (Clark) was a resident of
Jasper County, Iowa, and employed by Defendant TPI Iowa, LLC (TPI Iowa) a Delaware
limited liability company.

2. At all times material hereto, Defendant TPI Composites, Inc. (TPI Composites)
was a corporation registered with the Secretary of State of Arizona, and the parent company of
TPI Iowa.
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.
4. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Danielle
Williams was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources Manager.
5. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Cleo Boyd
was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources Manager.
6. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Terry Van
Huysen was employed by TPI Iowa as the general manager.
7. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Allen
Finchum was employed by TPI Iowa as the operations manager.
8. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Matt Martin
was employed by TPI Iowa as a Shift Leader and/or one of Clarks supervisors.
9. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Barb Sinnott
was employed by TPI Iowa as a Shift Leader and/or one of Clarks supervisors.
10. Upon information and belief, at times material hereto, Defendant Jim Bailey was
employed by TPI Iowa as an Environmental Health and Safety Manager.
11. Upon Information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant David Lloyd
was employed by TPI Composites, Inc. or TPI Iowa, LLC as the Global EHS Group Leader.
12. Upon Information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Insurance
Company for the State of Pennsylvania was the insurer for TPI Iowas workers compensation
policies.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Petition as if
fully set forth herein.
14. These are gross negligence, fraud, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith
and 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.
15. Venue is proper in Jasper County.
16. Damages exceed the threshold for small claims court.
FACTS
17. Clark incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 of this Petition as if fully
set forth herein.
18. TPI Iowa is a wind blade manufacturing business located at 2300 N. 33rd Ave.,
Newton, Iowa.
19. At all material times hereto, Clark was a prospective, current or former employee
of TPI Iowa.
20. TPI Iowa employs hundreds of employees at the Newton, Iowa manufacturing
plant.
21. As a part of the wind blade manufacturing process, TPI Iowas employees work
with hazardous chemicals while manufacturing the wind blades.

22. TPI Iowas employees work with a hazardous chemical called EPIKURE Curing
Agent MGS RIMH 1366 (Curing Agent) while manufacturing the wind blades.
23. The Curing Agent is a mixture that includes the following ingredients:
Alkyleteramine, Cycioaliphatic Amine, Aliphatic Polyamine, Amine-Epoxy Resin Adduct and
Organic Acid.
24. TPI Iowas employees also work with an EPIKURE Resin MGS RIMR 135
(Resin) while manufacturing the wind blades.
25. The Resin is a mixture that includes the following ingredients: 4, 4-
Isopropylidenediphenol-Epichlorohydrin Copolymer and Oxirane, 2, 2-(1, 6 Hexanediylbis
(Oxymethylene))Bis-.
26. In addition to the Curing Agent and Resin, TPI Employees work with other toxic
chemicals (Resin, Curing Agent & other chemicals collectively referred to as Chemicals).
27. The Resin is classified as a substance or mixture that 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 damage to the reproduction system.
28. According to the Resins safety data sheets, individuals working with the Resin
must use personal protective equipment in order to avoid contracting the chemicals known
hazards.
must only work with the Resin in outdoors or in well-ventilated areas in order to avoid
contracting the chemicals known hazards.

must not wear contaminated clothing out of the workplace in order to avoid contracting the
chemicals known hazards.
31. The Curing Agent is classified as a substance or mixture that is toxic following a
single oral or dermal exposure.
32. The Curing Agent is classified as a substance or mixture that causes skin
corrosion or irritation, serious eye damage or eye irritation, respiratory sensitization, skin
sensitization, reproductive system damage, damage to fertility, and allergy or asthma symptoms
or breathing difficulties if inhaled.
33. According to the Curing Agents safety data sheets, individuals working with the
Curing Agent must wear personal protective equipment in order to avoid contracting the
chemicals known hazards.
34. According to the Curing Agents safety data sheets, if an individual is exposed,
inhales or ingests the Curing Agent, medical attention is required.
35. Since August 13, 2008, TPI Iowa, LLC has documented approximately three
hundred fifty (350) injuries on its Iowa OSHA logs resulting from Chemical exposure to its
employees at the Newton, IA manufacturing plant.
36. Clark was first employed by TPI Iowa in or around 2012.
37. Clark left employment with TPI Iowa in late 2015.
38. As of January 1, 2013, hundreds of Chemical injuries had been documented by
TPI Iowa in their Iowa OSHA logs.
39. While employed at TPI Iowa, Clark worked in molding, spar cap, trailing edge,
pre-fabs and NCR.

40. Plaintiff Clark worked directly with the Chemicals on a daily basis.
41. Clark was not provided with sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) to
protect him from the known hazards of the Chemicals he worked with at TPI Iowa.
42. The PPE provided to Clark did not prevent exposure, inhalation, or ingestion, of
the Chemicals.
43. Defendants knew that Clark was not provided with sufficient protective
equipment to avoid a Chemical injury.
44. While employed at TPI Iowa, Clark reported to Defendants that his skin was
breaking out with bumps and rashes.
45. At the time Clark reported his symptoms, employees at TPI Iowa also instructed
Clark to continue working.
46. On or about December 16, 2015, Clark broke out with severe rashes all over his
body including break outs on his fee, hands, arms, and eyes.
47. Clark did not have any contact dermatitis prior to being exposed to the Chemicals
while working at TPI Iowa.
48. Clark decided it was in his best interest to his health and well-being to end his
employment at TPI Iowa.
49. To date, Clark continues to suffer adverse symptoms from the chemicals.
50. Clark is currently breaking out near his eyes, both of his feet and hands as a result
of the Chemical exposure.
COUNT I: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

(Hoenicke, Williams, Boyd, Martin, Sinnott, Bailey, Lloyd, Finchum, Bailey)
51. Clark incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 50 of the Petition as if fully
set forth herein.

52. Defendants each owed a duty of care to Clark while Clark was working in the
scope of his employment at TPI Iowa.
53. Defendants each violated their duty of care to Clark.
54. Defendants each had knowledge and understood that the Chemicals used by Clark
in the scope of his employment at TPI Iowa caused injury.
55. Defendants each knew that it was probable, and not merely possible, that Clark
would suffer injuries as a result of his exposure to the dangerous Chemicals.
56. Defendants each consciously failed to avoid the danger of Clark suffering injuries
from the Chemicals.
57. Clark suffered damages as a result of his injuries caused by the Chemicals.
58. Defendants took the actions in paragraphs 1 through 61 above with the willful and
wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Clark.
59. The actions described in paragraphs 1 through 62 entitle Clark to punitive
damages.
COUNT II FRAUD
(Clark vs. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa)
60. Clark incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 59 of the Petition as of fully
set forth herein.
61. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that as an employee, Clark
was their most valuable asset.
62. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that his health and safety was
a primary consideration in every company decision and plan made by TPI Composites and TPI
Iowa.
63. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that they were committed to
protecting him from injury.
64. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that they would provide him
with a safe work environment.
65. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that they had established
safety rules, programs and procedures that assured safe operations.
66. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that they provide training to
everyone in their organization to help them do their job safely.
67. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that they would ensure that he
would work in an environment that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause
serious physical harm.
68. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that if he suffered an injury,
they would send him to a doctor to determine if the injury was work-related.
69. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that they had established a
safety committee to enforce safety policies and prevent accidents and injuries in areas of safety
concern.
70. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that the materials he worked
with were not dangerous if he wore the PPE provided by TPI Composites and TPI Iowa.
71. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Clark that allergic contact dermatitis
was avoidable if he followed their recommended safety practices.
72. The representations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs sixty-one (61)
through seventy-one (71) were false.

73. The misrepresentations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs sixty-five (61)
through seventy-one (75) are material.
74. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa made the misrepresentations to Clark with the
intent to deceive him into accepting employment at TPI Iowa.
intent to deceive him so that he would continue to work at TPI Iowa after he accepted
employment.
intent to deceive him so that they could employ him and fulfill production expectations for which
they were contractually bound.
intent to deceive her so that they could make a monetary profit at the expense of Clarks
livelihood and health.
78. Clark relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas
misrepresentations by accepting employment at TPI Iowa.
79. Clark relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas
misrepresentations by continuing to work at TPI Iowa for several months.
80. 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 Clarks
injury.
81. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa knew that their misrepresentations were false given
their systematic practice of hiring healthy employees and then terminating them from
employment after their employees sustained a Chemical injury.

82. TPI Iowa used Iowas workers compensation statute to perpetrate the fraud
against Clark in order to avoid liability.
83. Clark suffered damages when he was permanently injured due to exposure to the
Chemicals he worked with while employed at TPI Iowa.
84. Clark suffered damages when he was terminated by TPI Iowa from employment.
COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Clark vs. TPI Iowa)
set forth herein.
86. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Clark communicated to Clark that it would
provide him with a safe and hazard free work environment.
87. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Clark communicated to Clark that TPI Iowa
had established safety procedures to ensure safe business operations.
would comply with its established safety procedures.
would provide him with a work environment that was free from recognized hazards that result in
serious physical harm.
90. Clark accepted TPI Iowas offer for employment by commencing employment in
or around 2012 and then continued at TPI Iowa for varying lengths until December 2015.
91. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Clark by failing to provide Clark with a
hazard free work environment.

92. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Clark by failing to establish and/or comply
with safety procedures that assured safe business operations.
93. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Clark by failing to provide Clark with a
work environment that was free from recognized hazards that result in serious harm.
94. Clark suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach.
95. The damages sustained by Clark were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
COUNT IV BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR

DEALING
(Clark vs. TPI Iowa)
set forth herein.
97. TPI Iowa failed to act in good faith with respect to its offer for employment to
Clark.
98. TPI Iowa failed to act in good faith with respect to its employment relationship
with Clark.
99. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
Clark with a safe work environment due to a lack of diligence.
100. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
Clark with a safe work environment by willfully rendering imperfect performance.
101. Clark suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
102. The damages sustained by Clark were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
COUNT V JOINT VENTURE
(Clark vs. TPI Composites)

103. Clark incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 102 of the Petition as of
104. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are an association of two entities engaged in the
business of wind blade manufacturing.
105. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are engaged in a common undertaking.
106. TPI Composites and TPI Iowas wind blade manufacturing business enterprises
are for profit.
107. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a joint proprietary interest in their for profit
business enterprises.
108. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a mutual right to control their for profit
109. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a right to share in the profits of their for profit
110. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a duty to share in the losses of their for profit
111. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are a joint venture.
112. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa share tort liability.
113. TPI Iowa was negligent in facility to provide Clark with a safe workplace
environment.
114. TPI Iowa was generally negligent under the circumstances.
115. TPI Iowas negligence caused Clark to suffer injuries.
116. TPI Composites is liable to Clark for his damages proximately caused by TPI
Iowas negligence.
COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE
(Clark vs. TPI Composites)
117. Clark incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 116 of the Petition as if
118. TPI Composites owed Clark a duty to provide him with a safe workplace.
119. TPI Composites was negligent in failing to provide Clark with a safe workplace
environment.
120. TPI Composites was generally negligent under the circumstances.
121. TPI Composites negligence caused Clark to suffer injuries.
COUNT VII PIERCING
123. TPI Iowa is a mere instrumentality of TPI Composites.
124. TPI Iowa serves no legitimate business purpose.
125. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as a means of perpetrating fraud against Clark.
126. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as an unfair device to perpetrate fraud against
Clark.
127. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as a means to attempt to avoid its legal obligation
to Clark and other employees.
128. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa to circumvent liability under Iowas
discrimination statutes.
129. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa to circumvent liability under Iowas workers
compensation statutes.
130. TPI Iowa was used primarily by TPI Composites as a means to promote fraud and
injustice.
COUNT XIII - NEGLIGENT INSPECTION
(Clark vs. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania)
132. While Clark was employed at TPI Iowa, Insurance Company State of
Pennsylvania was TPI Iowas workers compensation insurer.
133. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania undertook, gratuitously or for
consideration, an inspection(s) that it should have recognized as necessary for the protection of
Clark.
134. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Clark for physical harm
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because its failure
to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of the harm to Clark.
135. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Dusabe for physical harm
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because the harm
to Clark was suffered because of reliance of TPI Composites, TPI Iowa or Clark upon the
undertaking.
136. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Clark 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 Clark.
COUNT IX FAILURE TO INSPECT
(Clark vs. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania)

137. Clark incorporates paragraphs 1 through 136 of the Petition as if fully set forth
herein.
138. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania owed a duty to Clark to inspect the
premises at TPI Iowa.
139. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania failed to inspect the premises at TPI
Iowa.
140. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvanias failure to inspect the premises at TPI
Iowa caused injury and damages to Clark.
141. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Clark for the damages
suffered by Clark as a result of its failure to inspect the premises at TPI Iowa.
COUNT X PUNITIVE DAMAGES
142. Defendants took the actions in paragraphs 1 through 141 above with the willful
and wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Clark.
143. The actions described in paragraphs 1 through 141, entitle Clark to punitive
damages.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Clark requests judgment be entered in his favor and against
Defendant TPI Composites, TPI Iowa, LLC, Hoenicke, Williams, Boyd, Martin, Sinnott, Bailey,
Lloyd, Finchum, Bailey and Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania, and that the Court order
the Defendants to pay the following damages sustained by Clark:
A. Past medical expenses;
B. Future medical expenses;
C. Past loss of full mind and body;

D. Future loss of full mind and body;
E. Past lost wages;
F. Future lost wages and loss of earning capacity;
G. Past physical pain and mental suffering;
H. Future physical pain and mental suffering;
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
Plaintiff Clark demands a trial by jury of all issues herein.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Matthew M. Sahag

Matthew M. Sahag
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
AT# 0008849
301 East Walnut Street, Suite 1
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
PHONE: 515.288.5008
FAX: 515.288.5010
E-MAIL: matthew@dickeycampbell.com

Clark Petition

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Clark Petition

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

E-FILED 2017 SEP 28 4:44 PM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY

counsel as to all other matters, as follows:

limited liability company.

Williams was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources Manager.

was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources Manager.

Huysen was employed by TPI Iowa as the general manager.

Finchum was employed by TPI Iowa as the operations manager.

employed by TPI Iowa as an Environmental Health and Safety Manager.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

fully set forth herein.

15. Venue is proper in Jasper County.

16. Damages exceed the threshold for small claims court.

set forth herein.

with hazardous chemicals while manufacturing the wind blades.

Alkyleteramine, Cycioaliphatic Amine, Aliphatic Polyamine, Amine-Epoxy Resin Adduct and

(Resin) while manufacturing the wind blades.

25. The Resin is a mixture that includes the following ingredients: 4, 4-

Isopropylidenediphenol-Epichlorohydrin Copolymer and Oxirane, 2, 2-(1, 6 Hexanediylbis

contracting the chemicals known hazards.

chemicals known hazards.

single oral or dermal exposure.

or breathing difficulties if inhaled.

chemicals known hazards.

inhales or ingests the Curing Agent, medical attention is required.

employees at the Newton, IA manufacturing plant.

36. Clark was first employed by TPI Iowa in or around 2012.

37. Clark left employment with TPI Iowa in late 2015.

38. As of January 1, 2013, hundreds of Chemical injuries had been documented by

TPI Iowa in their Iowa OSHA logs.

pre-fabs and NCR.

equipment to avoid a Chemical injury.

breaking out with bumps and rashes.

Clark to continue working.

while working at TPI Iowa.

employment at TPI Iowa.

of the Chemical exposure.

COUNT I: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

set forth herein.

scope of his employment at TPI Iowa.

53. Defendants each violated their duty of care to Clark.

in the scope of his employment at TPI Iowa caused injury.

would suffer injuries as a result of his exposure to the dangerous Chemicals.

from the Chemicals.

wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Clark.

59. The actions described in paragraphs 1 through 62 entitle Clark to punitive

(Clark vs. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa)

60. Clark incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 59 of the Petition as of fully

set forth herein.

was their most valuable asset.

protecting him from injury.

with a safe work environment.

safety rules, programs and procedures that assured safe operations.

everyone in their organization to help them do their job safely.

serious physical harm.

was avoidable if he followed their recommended safety practices.

through seventy-one (71) were false.

through seventy-one (75) are material.

intent to deceive him into accepting employment at TPI Iowa.

they were contractually bound.

livelihood and health.

78. Clark relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas

misrepresentations by accepting employment at TPI Iowa.

79. Clark relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas