An Illinois appellate court on Thursday revived a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estate of a municipal water worker who drowned after being sent alone into an underground vault, ruling the claims are not barred by workers compensation exclusivity at the pleading stage.
In Heiden v. Village of Westmont, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District reversed a lower court’s dismissal of the case and remanded it for further proceedings.
The case stems from the February 2023 death of Matthew Heiden, a 20-year-old employee of the Village of Westmont’s water department. According to the complaint, the village sent Mr. Heiden alone into a permit-required confined space to repair a leaking valve without required safety precautions or protective equipment.
While Mr. Heiden was in the underground vault, a valve dislodged, trapping his arm as the vault filled with water. Emergency responders eventually freed him, but he was pronounced dead at a hospital.
An investigation by the Illinois Department of Labor identified multiple safety failures, including the absence of a confined-space entry permit, lack of training and personal protective equipment, failure to de-energize the water main and the absence of a retrieval system such as a harness and line.
The worker’s estate sued the village and others, alleging the municipality intentionally violated safety rules and knowingly sent the worker into a dangerous confined space.
A Du Page County circuit court dismissed the claims against the village, ruling they were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act.
The appellate court disagreed, finding the estate plausibly alleged intentional conduct sufficient to invoke an exception to workers compensation exclusivity, which generally bars civil suits against employers for workplace injuries.
The court also rejected the village’s argument that it was immune under the state’s Tort Immunity Act, concluding the allegations concerned the municipality’s failure to comply with safety laws rather than a failure to enforce them.
Finally, the panel found the estate adequately pleaded causation.
The court emphasized that its ruling addressed only whether the complaint could proceed, not whether the estate would ultimately prevail. The case was remanded to the trial court.
This article was first published in Business Insurance
