Ezeirig Petition

E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 12:01 PM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY
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
Arizona, and the parent company of TPI Iowa, LLC.

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
resident of Polk County, Iowa.
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, and a resident of Polk County, Iowa.
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 times material hereto, Defendant Jim Bailey was
employed by TPI Iowa as an Environmental Health and Safety Manager.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Petition as if
fully set forth herein.
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.
12. Damages exceed the threshold for small claims court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13. Ezeirig incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Petition as if
14. TPI Composites is a wind blade manufacturing business having one of its
business addresses at 2300 N. 33rd Ave., Newton, IA.
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
manufacturer of wind blades in the wind energy market.
17. In 2015, TPI Composites reported revenue of $586,000,000.00.
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
employee of TPI Iowa.
20. As a part of the wind blade manufacturing process, TPI Iowas employees work
with hazardous chemicals while manufacturing the wind blades.
21. During his employment at TPI Iowa, Ezeirig worked with hazardous chemicals
while manufacturing the wind blades.
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
the wind blades.
24. TPI Iowas employees work with a hazardous Resin while manufacturing the
wind blades.
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
sensitization, simple asphyxiation, gastrointestinal irritation, central nervous system depression,
liver effects, kidney effects and bladder effects or peripheral neuropathy.
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
damage to the reproduction system.
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 or eye irritation, respiratory sensitization, skin sensitization, reproductive system
damage, damage to fertility, and allergy or asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled.
31. Personal Protective equipment (PPE) is required to be worn to avoid the
adverse health effects of the Adhesives, Resin and Curing Agent.
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
employees at the Newton, IA manufacturing plant.
33. Ezeirig was employed by Defendants in 2016.
34. As of January 1, 2016, hundreds of Chemical injuries had been documented by
TPI Iowa in their Iowa OSHA logs.

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.
36. Ezeirig worked directly with the Chemicals on a daily basis.
37. Ezeirig was not provided with sufficient PPE to protect him from the known
hazards of the Chemicals he worked with at TPI Iowa.
38. The PPE provided to the Ezeirig did not prevent exposure, inhalation, or
ingestion, of the Chemicals.
39. Defendants knew that Ezeirig was not provided with sufficient protective
equipment to avoid a Chemical injury.
40. While employed at TPI Iowa, Ezeirig reported to Defendants that his skin was
breaking out with bumps and rashes.
41. At the time Ezeirig initially reported his symptoms, Ezeirig was not sent to a
doctor.
42. Instead, Defendants instructed Ezeirig to participate in a three-step program that
was administered by non-medical professionals, and consisted of applying lotions and bandages
to his open rashes and wounds.
43. At the time Ezeirig reported his symptoms, employees at TPI Iowa also instructed
Ezeirig to continue working.
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
his exposure to the Chemicals.
COUNT I: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

(Ezeirig vs. Hoenicke, Williams, Boyd, Finchum, Van Huysen, and Bailey)
47. Ezeirig incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 of the Petition as if
48. Defendants each owed a duty of care to Ezeirig while Ezeirig was working in the
scope of his employment at TPI Iowa.
49. Defendants each violated their duty of care to the Ezeirig.
50. Defendants each had knowledge and understood that the Chemicals used by
Ezeirig in the scope of his employment at TPI Iowa caused injury.
51. Defendants each knew that it was probable, and not merely possible, that Ezeirig
would suffer injuries as a result of his exposure to the dangerous Chemicals.
52. Defendants each consciously failed to avoid the danger of Ezeirig suffering
injuries from the Chemicals.
53. Ezeirig suffered damages as a result of his injuries caused by the Chemicals.
COUNT II FRAUD
(Ezeirig vs. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa)
54. Ezeirig incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 of the Petition as of
55. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that as an employee, Ezeirig
was their most valuable asset.
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
protecting him from injury.

58. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they would provide him
with a safe work environment.
59. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they had established
safety rules, programs and procedures that assured safe operations.
60. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Ezeirig that they provide training to
everyone in their organization to help them do their job safely.
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
serious physical harm.
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
dermatitis was avoidable if he followed their recommended safety practices.
66. The representations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs fifty-five (55)
through sixty-five (65) were false.
67. The misrepresentations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs fifty-five (55)
through sixty-five (65) are material.

68. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa made the misrepresentations to Ezeirig 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 him so that they could make a monetary profit at the expense of Ezeirigs
livelihood and health.
72. Ezeirig relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas
misrepresentations by accepting employment at TPI Iowa.
73. Ezeirig relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas
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
employment after their employees sustained a Chemical injury.
76. TPI Iowa used Iowas workers compensation statute to perpetrate the fraud
against Ezeirig in order to avoid liability.

77. Ezeirig suffered damages when he was permanently injured due to exposure to the
Chemicals he worked with while employed at TPI Iowa.
78. Ezeirig suffered damages when he was terminated by TPI Iowa from
employment.
COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Ezeirig vs. TPI Iowa)
80. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Ezeirig communicated to Ezeirig that it would
provide him with a safe and hazard free work environment.
81. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Ezeirig communicated to Ezeirig that TPI
Iowa had established safety procedures to ensure safe business operations.
Iowa would comply with its established safety procedures.
Iowa would provide him with a work environment that was free from recognized hazards that
result in serious physical harm.
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
hazard free work environment.
86. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Ezeirig by failing to establish and/or
comply with safety procedures that assured safe business operations.

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.
88. Ezeirig suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach.
89. The damages sustained by Ezeirig were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
COUNT IV BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR

DEALING
(Ezeirig vs. 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
Ezeirig with a safe work environment due to a lack of diligence.
94. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
Ezeirig with a safe work environment by willfully rendering imperfect performance.
95. Ezeirig suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
96. The damages sustained by Ezeirig were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
COUNT V JOINT VENTURE
(Ezeirig vs. TPI Composites)
97. Ezeirig incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 96 of the Petition as of

98. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are an association of two entities engaged in the
business of wind blade manufacturing.
99. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are engaged in a common undertaking.
100. TPI Composites and TPI Iowas wind blade manufacturing businesses enterprise
are for profit.
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
103. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a right to share in the profits of their for profit
104. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a duty to share in the losses of their for profit
105. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are a joint venture.
106. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa share tort liability.
107. TPI Iowa was negligent in facility to provide Ezeirig with a safe workplace
environment.
108. TPI Iowa was generally negligent under the circumstances.
109. TPI Iowas negligence caused Ezeirig to suffer injuries.
110. TPI Composites is liable to Ezeirig for his damages proximately caused by TPI
Iowas negligence.
COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE
(Ezeirig vs. TPI Composites)

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.
114. TPI Composites was generally negligent under the circumstances.
115. TPI Composites negligence caused Ezeirig to suffer injuries.
COUNT VII PIERCING
117. TPI Iowa is a mere instrumentality of TPI Composites.
118. TPI Iowa serves no legitimate business purpose.
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
to Ezeirig and other employees.
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.
COUNT VIII - NEGLIGENT INSPECTION
(Ezeirig vs. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania)
126. While Ezeirig was employed at TPI Iowa, Insurance Company State of
Pennsylvania was TPI Iowas workers compensation insurer.
127. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania undertook, gratuitously or for
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
to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of the harm to Ezeirig.
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.
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.
COUNT IX FAILURE TO INSPECT
(Ezeirig vs. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania)
131. Ezeirig incorporates paragraphs 1 through 130 of the Petition as if fully set forth
herein.
132. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania owed a duty to Ezeirig to inspect the
premises at TPI Iowa.
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
Iowa caused injury and damages to Ezeirig.
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.
COUNT X PUNITIVE DAMAGES
136. Defendants took the actions in paragraphs 1 through 124 above with the willful
and wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Ezeirig.
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
to pay the following damages sustained by Ezeirig:
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 Ezeirig 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

Ezeirig Petition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ezeirig Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 12:01 PM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY

Arizona, and the parent company of TPI Iowa, LLC.

resident of Polk County, Iowa.

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

was employed by TPI Iowa as a Human Resources 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.

12. Damages exceed the threshold for small claims court.

13. Ezeirig incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 of this Petition as if

fully set forth herein.

business addresses at 2300 N. 33rd Ave., Newton, IA.

manufacturer of wind blades in the wind energy market.

17. In 2015, TPI Composites reported revenue of $586,000,000.00.

employee of TPI Iowa.

with hazardous chemicals while manufacturing the wind blades.

while manufacturing the wind blades.

the wind blades.

sensitization, simple asphyxiation, gastrointestinal irritation, central nervous system depression,

liver effects, kidney effects and bladder effects or peripheral neuropathy.

damage to the reproduction system.

damage or eye irritation, respiratory sensitization, skin sensitization, reproductive system

31. Personal Protective equipment (PPE) is required to be worn to avoid the

adverse health effects of the Adhesives, Resin and Curing Agent.

employees at the Newton, IA manufacturing plant.

33. Ezeirig was employed by Defendants in 2016.

34. As of January 1, 2016, hundreds of Chemical injuries had been documented by

TPI Iowa in their Iowa OSHA logs.

36. Ezeirig worked directly with the Chemicals on a daily basis.

hazards of the Chemicals he worked with at TPI Iowa.

ingestion, of the Chemicals.

equipment to avoid a Chemical injury.

breaking out with bumps and rashes.

42. Instead, Defendants instructed Ezeirig to participate in a three-step program that

to his open rashes and wounds.

Ezeirig to continue working.

his exposure to the Chemicals.

COUNT I: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

47. Ezeirig incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 of the Petition as if

fully set forth herein.

scope of his employment at TPI Iowa.

49. Defendants each violated their duty of care to the Ezeirig.

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

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

injuries from the Chemicals.

(Ezeirig vs. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa)

54. Ezeirig incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 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.

dermatitis was avoidable if he followed their recommended safety practices.

through sixty-five (65) were false.

through sixty-five (65) are material.

intent to deceive him into accepting employment at TPI Iowa.

they were contractually bound.

livelihood and health.

72. Ezeirig relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas

misrepresentations by accepting employment at TPI Iowa.