Dusabe Petition

E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 11:59 AM JASPER - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY
AGNES DUSABE, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
) No. LACV120367
)
vs. )
) AMENDED PETITION AT LAW
RYAN HOENICKE, DANIELLE WILLIAMS, ) 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 Agnes Dusabe, by and through the undersigned counsel, and
hereby files her 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 her 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 Dusabe (Dusabe) was a resident of Polk
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. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 8 of her 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, failure to inspect, negligence inspection and punitive
damage claims, and her court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to her 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. Dusabe incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 of her 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, Dusabe 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 her employment at TPI Iowa, Dusabe 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. Dusabe was employed by Defendants in or around May 2016.
34. As of May 1, 2016, hundreds of Chemical injuries had been documented by TPI
Iowa in their Iowa OSHA logs.

35. Dusabes work duties at TPI included, but were not limited to the molding
department and painting department.
36. Dusabe worked directly with the Chemicals on a daily basis.
37. Dusabe was not provided with sufficient PPE to protect her from the known
hazards of the Chemicals he worked with at TPI Iowa.
38. The PPE provided to the Dusabe did not prevent exposure, inhalation, or
ingestion, of the Chemicals.
39. Defendants knew that Dusabe was not provided with sufficient protective
equipment to avoid a Chemical injury.
40. In September 2016, while employed at TPI Iowa, Dusabe reported to TPI Iowa
that her face was breaking out with bumps and rashes.
41. Dusabe also reported to TPI Iowa that she was pregnant and had miscarried her
baby.
42. Dusabe further reported to TPI Iowa that she was experiencing irregular vaginal
bleeding.
43. At the time Dusabe reported her injury to TPI Iowa, TPI Iowa sent her to a
physician named Dr. Miller.
44. Dr. Miller conducted a skin patch test and determined that her face breakouts
were not related to her employment at TPI Iowa.
45. Dr. Miller informed Dusabe that she could return to work.
46. Dusabe returned to work at TPI Iowa and continued to suffer from the effects of
the Chemicals.
47. In November 2016, Dusabe was at work and started to experience irregular
vaginal bleeding.
48. Dusabe went to the restroom to attend to the bleeding.
49. While in the restroom, Dusabe took off her PPE, and discovered that her
undergarments were covered in blood and that the blood was on her legs.
50. Dusabe took time to clean herself, left the restroom, and then went on break.
51. After break, Dusabe returned to work.
52. Two days later, Dusabe was summoned to human resources.
53. Human resources informed her that they had received a complaint that Dusabe
was away from work for too long while she was in the restroom.
54. Dusabe explained to human resources that she was tending to her health issues in
the restroom, and that she needed additional time in the restroom due to her health condition.
55. Dusabe was terminated from employment at TPI Iowa.
56. To date, Dusabe continues to suffer adverse symptoms from the Chemicals.
57. Dusabe has breakouts and scars all over her face due to skin break outs and
rashes.
58. Dusabe continues to have irregular vaginal bleeding.
COUNT I: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

(Dusabe vs. Hoenicke, Williams, Boyd, Finchum, Van Huysen, Bailey)
59. Dusabe incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 58 of the Petition as if
60. Defendants each owed a duty of care to Dusabe while Dusabe was working in the
scope of her employment at TPI Iowa.
61. Defendants each violated their duty of care to the Dusabe.

62. Defendants each had knowledge and understood that the Chemicals used by
Dusabe in the scope of her employment at TPI Iowa caused injury.
63. Defendants each knew that it was probable, and not merely possible, that Dusabe
would suffer injuries as a result of her exposure to the dangerous Chemicals.
64. Defendants each consciously failed to avoid the danger of Dusabe suffering
injuries from the Chemicals.
65. Dusabe suffered damages as a result of her injuries caused by the Chemicals.
COUNT II FRAUD
(Dusabe vs. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa)
66. Dusabe incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65 of the Petition as of
67. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that as an employee,
Dusabe was their most valuable asset.
68. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that her health and safety
was a primary consideration in every company decision and plan made by TPI Composites and
TPI Iowa.
69. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that they were committed to
protecting her from injury.
70. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that they would provide her
with a safe work environment.
71. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that they had established
safety rules, programs and procedures that assured safe operations.

72. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that they provide training to
everyone in their organization to help them do their job safely.
73. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that they would ensure that
she would work in an environment that is free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause
serious physical harm.
74. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that if she suffered an
injury, they would send her to a doctor to determine if the injury was work-related.
75. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that they had established a
safety committee to enforce safety policies and prevent accidents and injuries in areas of safety
concern.
76. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that the materials she
worked with were not dangerous if he wore the PPE provided by TPI Composites and TPI Iowa.
77. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa represented to Dusabe that allergic contact
dermatitis was avoidable if he followed their recommended safety practices.
78. The representations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs sixty-seven (67)
through seventy-seven (77) were false.
79. The misrepresentations made by TPI and TPI Iowa in paragraphs sixty-seven (67)
through seventy-seven (77) are material.
80. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa made the misrepresentations to Dusabe with the
intent to deceive her into accepting employment at TPI Iowa.
intent to deceive her so that she would continue to work at TPI Iowa after he accepted
employment.
intent to deceive her so that they could employ her 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 Dusabes
livelihood and health.
84. Dusabe relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas
misrepresentations by accepting employment at TPI Iowa.
85. Dusabe relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas
misrepresentations by continuing to work at TPI Iowa for several months.
86. 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 Dusabes
injury.
87. 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.
88. TPI Iowa used Iowas workers compensation statute to perpetrate the fraud
against Dusabe in order to avoid liability.
89. Dusabe suffered damages when he was permanently injured due to exposure to
the Chemicals she worked with while employed at TPI Iowa.
90. Dusabe suffered damages when she was terminated by TPI Iowa from
employment.
COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Dusabe vs. TPI Iowa)
92. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Dusabe communicated to Dusabe that it would
provide her with a safe and hazard free work environment.
93. TPI Iowas offer of employment to Dusabe communicated to Dusabe that TPI
Iowa had established safety procedures to ensure safe business operations.
Iowa would comply with its established safety procedures.
Iowa would provide her with a work environment that was free from recognized hazards that
result in serious physical harm.
96. Dusabe accepted TPI Iowas offer for employment by commencing employment
in or around May 2016 and working continuously at TPI Iowa for several months.
97. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Dusabe by failing to provide Dusabe with a
hazard free work environment.
98. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Dusabe by failing to establish and/or
comply with safety procedures that assured safe business operations.
99. TPI Iowa breached its agreement with Dusabe by failing to provide Dusabe with a
work environment that was free from recognized hazards that result in serious harm.
100. Dusabe suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach.
101. The damages sustained by Dusabe were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
COUNT IV BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR

DEALING
(Dusabe vs. TPI Iowa)
103. TPI Iowa failed to act in good faith with respect to its offer for employment to
Dusabe.
104. TPI Iowa failed to act in good faith with respect to its employment relationship
with Dusabe.
105. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
Dusabe with a safe work environment due to a lack of diligence.
106. TPI Iowa evaded its obligation of good faith in performance by failing to provide
Dusabe with a safe work environment by willfully rendering imperfect performance.
107. Dusabe suffered damages as a result of TPI Iowas breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
108. The damages sustained by Dusabe were proximately caused by TPI Iowa.
COUNT V JOINT VENTURE
(Dusabe vs. TPI Composites)
109. Dusabe incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 108 of the Petition as of
110. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are an association of two entities engaged in the
business of wind blade manufacturing.
111. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are engaged in a common undertaking.
112. TPI Composites and TPI Iowas wind blade manufacturing business enterprises
are for profit.

113. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a joint proprietary interest in their for profit
business enterprises.
114. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a mutual right to control their for profit
115. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a right to share in the profits of their for profit
116. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa have a duty to share in the losses of their for profit
117. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa are a joint venture.
118. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa share tort liability.
119. TPI Iowa was negligent in facility to provide Dusabe with a safe workplace
environment.
120. TPI Iowa was generally negligent under the circumstances.
121. TPI Iowas negligence caused Dusabe to suffer injuries.
122. TPI Composites is liable to Dusabe for her damages proximately caused by TPI
Iowas negligence.
COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE
(Dusabe vs. TPI Composites)
124. TPI Composites owed Dusabe a duty to provide her with a safe workplace.
125. TPI Composites was negligent in failing to provide Dusabe with a safe workplace
environment.
126. TPI Composites was generally negligent under the circumstances.
127. TPI Composites negligence caused Dusabe to suffer injuries.
COUNT VII PIERCING
129. TPI Iowa is a mere instrumentality of TPI Composites.
130. TPI Iowa serves no legitimate business purpose.
131. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as a means of perpetrating fraud against Dusabe.
132. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as an unfair device to perpetrate fraud against
Dusabe.
133. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa as a means to attempt to avoid its legal obligation
to Dusabe and other employees.
134. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa to circumvent liability under Iowas
discrimination statutes.
135. TPI Composites used TPI Iowa to circumvent liability under Iowas workers
compensation statutes.
136. TPI Iowa was used primarily by TPI Composites as a means to promote fraud and
injustice.
COUNT XIII - NEGLIGENT INSPECTION
(Dusabe vs. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania)

138. While Dusabe was employed at TPI Iowa, Insurance Company State of
Pennsylvania was TPI Iowas workers compensation insurer.
139. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania undertook, gratuitously or for
consideration, an inspection(s) that it should have recognized as necessary for the protection of
Dusabe.
140. 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 its failure
to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of the harm to Dusabe.
resulting from its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking because the harm
to Dusabe was suffered because of reliance of TPI Composites, TPI Iowa or Dusabe 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 Dusabe.
COUNT IX FAILURE TO INSPECT
(Dusabe vs. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania)
143. Dusabe incorporates paragraphs 1 through 142 of the Petition as if fully set forth
herein.
144. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania owed a duty to Dusabe to inspect the
premises at TPI Iowa.
145. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania failed to inspect the premises at TPI
Iowa.
146. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvanias failure to inspect the premises at TPI
Iowa caused injury and damages to Dusabe.
147. Insurance Company State of Pennsylvania is liable to Dusabe for the damages
suffered by Dusabe as a result of its failure to inspect the premises at TPI Iowa.
COUNT X PUNITIVE DAMAGES
148. Defendants took the actions in paragraphs 1 through 147 above with the willful
and wanton disregard for the rights and safety of Dusabe.
149. The actions described in paragraphs 1 through 147, entitle Dusabe to punitive
damages.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dusabe requests judgment be entered in her 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 Dusabe:
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 Dusabe 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

Dusabe 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

Dusabe Petition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E-FILED 2017 JUL 12 11:59 AM 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. Dusabe incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 12 of her 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. Dusabe was employed by Defendants in or around May 2016.

Iowa in their Iowa OSHA logs.

department and painting department.

36. Dusabe 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.

physician named Dr. Miller.

were not related to her employment at TPI Iowa.

48. Dusabe went to the restroom to attend to the bleeding.

51. After break, Dusabe returned to work.

52. Two days later, Dusabe was summoned to human resources.

55. Dusabe was terminated from employment at TPI Iowa.

58. Dusabe continues to have irregular vaginal bleeding.

COUNT I: GROSS NEGLIGENCE

fully set forth herein.

scope of her employment at TPI Iowa.

61. Defendants each violated their duty of care to the Dusabe.

Dusabe in the scope of her employment at TPI Iowa caused injury.

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

injuries from the Chemicals.

(Dusabe vs. TPI Composites and TPI Iowa)

66. Dusabe incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 65 of the Petition as of

fully set forth herein.

Dusabe was their most valuable asset.

protecting her 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 seventy-seven (77) were false.

through seventy-seven (77) are material.

intent to deceive her into accepting employment at TPI Iowa.

they were contractually bound.

livelihood and health.

84. Dusabe relied on TPI Composites misrepresentations and TPI Iowas