throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
`CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`BRIAN J. KROGMEIER and
`PAMELA KROGMEIER,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND
`COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`LAW NO.
`
`
`DEFENDANT ARCHER-DANIELS-
`MIDLAND COMPANY’S ANSWER,
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND JURY
`DEMAND
`
`Defendant Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (“ADM”) answers Plaintiffs’ PETITION
`
`
`
`AT LAW AND JURY DEMAND filed on November 18, 2020 (the “Petition”) as follows:
`
`ANSWER
`
`
`
`As its Answer to the Petition, ADM states that each allegation of the Petition not
`
`specifically admitted herein is denied. In response to each allegation of the Petition, ADM states
`
`as follows:
`
`COMMON ALLEGATIONS1
`
`1.
`
`At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier is and was a resident of
`
`Coralville, in Johnson County, Iowa.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier is and was a resident of Coralville, in
`
`Johnson County, Iowa. ADM denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 1 not specifically
`
`admitted.
`
`
`1 ADM has included the headings from the Petition for the convenience of the parties. The headings of this Answer
`are not meant to affect an admission or adoption of the factual or legal assertions of the Petition’s headings.
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`2.
`
`At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Pamela Krogmeier is and was a resident of
`
`Coralville, in Johnson County, Iowa.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits Plaintiff Pamela Krogmeier is and was a resident of Coralville,
`
`in Johnson County, Iowa. ADM denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 2 not
`
`specifically admitted.
`
`3.
`
`At all times material hereto, Defendant Archer-Daniels-Midland Company
`
`(“Defendant ADM”) was a Foreign Corporation doing business in the state of Iowa, with its home
`
`office in Decatur, Illinois.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits that it is a Foreign Corporation doing business in the state of
`
`Iowa. ADM denies that its home office is in Decatur, Illinois. ADM denies all remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph No. 3 not specifically admitted.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant ADM operates several production and/or
`
`manufacturing facilities in the State of Iowa, including a corn sweetener plant (“ADM Plant”) in
`
`Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa, with a mailing address of 1350 Waconia Avenue SW, Cedar
`
`Rapids, IA 52404.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits that it operates several facilities in the State of Iowa. ADM
`
`admits that it operates a facility in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa, with a mailing address of
`
`1350 Waconia Ave SW, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (the “ADM Plant”).2 ADM denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph No. 4, including without limitation the characterizations of its facilities.
`
`5.
`
`At the time of the incident mentioned below, Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier was an
`
`employee of Knutson Construction Services Midwest, Inc. (“Knutson”), located in Iowa City,
`
`Iowa, an independent contractor.
`
`
`2 The term “ADM Plant” and all other defined terms used herein shall refer to the term’s definition as established by
`ADM’s Answer and not to the term’s definition as set forth by Plaintiffs’ Petition.
`
`
`
`2
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits the allegations of Paragraph No. 5.
`
`6.
`
`On or about April 12, 2019, Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier was working on concrete
`
`construction at the ADM Plant in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits the allegations of Paragraph No. 6.
`
`7.
`
`At this time, Defendant ADM maintained ownership and/or operation of the ADM
`
`Plant.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits that it owns a facility located at 1350 Waconia Ave SW in Cedar
`
`Rapids, Iowa 52404. ADM denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 7 not specifically
`
`admitted.
`
`8.
`
`At this time, Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier was seriously injured while working at the
`
`ADM Plant in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits that on or about April 12, 2019, Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier was
`
`seriously injured while working at the ADM Plant in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa. ADM
`
`denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 8 not specifically admitted.
`
`9.
`
`The amount in controversy exceeds the appropriate jurisdictional amount.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits that Plaintiffs’ claims as pleaded place in controversy an amount
`
`exceeding the necessary jurisdictional amount. ADM specifically denies it is liable to Plaintiffs
`
`and denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 9 not specifically admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 3 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE BY POSSESSOR OF LAND
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs replead and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 of this
`
`Petition as if fully set forth herein.
`
`ANSWER: ADM reasserts each of its responses to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 9 of the
`
`Petition as if fully set forth herein.
`
`11. At all times relevant to this matter, Defendant ADM, including Defendant’s agents
`
`and employees, maintained occupation and substantial control of the premises and control of part
`
`of the work being done by Knutson.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 11.
`
`12. As possessor of the land, Defendant ADM had a duty to Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier
`
`to maintain its premises in a manner safe for the use of business invitees in the normal and
`
`reasonable scope of such use and/or to warn invitees, such as Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier, of
`
`dangerous conditions on the premises.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 12 of the Petition contains legal conclusions to which no response
`
`is required. To the extent a response is required, ADM denies all allegations in Paragraph 12.
`
`13. Defendant ADM knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of
`
`a condition on the premises and that it involved an unreasonable risk of injury to the employees of
`
`an independent contractor.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 13.
`
`14. Defendant ADM knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known:
`
`a) Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier would not discover the condition; or
`
`b) Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier would not realize the condition presented an
`
`unreasonable risk of injury; or
`
`
`
`4
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 4 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`c) Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier would not protect himself from the condition.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies all allegations of Paragraph No. 14, including each of its
`
`subparagraphs (a)-(c).
`
`15. Defendant ADM negligently breached its duty to Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier
`
`generally and specifically by, including but not limited to, the following particulars:
`
`a) Failing to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for an employee of
`
`an independent contractor;
`
`b) Failing to exercise reasonable care to discover the condition that created an
`
`unreasonable risk of harm to the employees of an independent contractor;
`
`c) Failing to take special precautions and exercise its control with reasonable care
`
`over the work for which Defendant maintained control;
`
`d) Failing to use ordinary care;
`
`e) Failing to provide safeguards against dangers for which Defendant was
`
`contractually obligated to provide protection;
`
`f) Failing to maintain a safe work environment;
`
`g) Failing to follow policies, procedures, and standards; and
`
`h) In other manners not yet known but which may become known through the
`
`course of discovery.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies all allegations of Paragraph No. 15, including each of its
`
`subparagraphs (a)-(h).
`
`16.
`
`The negligence of Defendant ADM—and/or its agents and employees—was a
`
`cause of Plaintiff’s damages.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies all allegations of Paragraph No. 16.
`
`
`
`5
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 5 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`17. Defendant ADM is liable for the negligence of its agents and employees and the
`
`resulting damages pursuant to the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies all allegations of Paragraph No. 17.
`
`18. As a result of the negligence of Defendant ADM, Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier has
`
`suffered and will in the future continue to suffer the following injuries and damages:
`
`a) Past and future medical expenses;
`
`b) Lost earnings;
`
`c) Loss of future earning capacity;
`
`d) Past and future physical and mental pain and suffering; and
`
`e) Past and future loss of full mind and body.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies all allegations of Paragraph No. 18, including each of its
`
`subparagraphs (a)-(e).
`
`COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE AS TO PECULIAR RISK AND INHERENT DANGER
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs replead and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 18 of this
`
`Petition as if fully set forth herein.
`
`ANSWER: ADM reasserts each of its responses to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 18 of the
`
`Petition as if fully set forth herein.
`
`20. At all times relevant to this matter, Defendant ADM maintained ownership and
`
`operation of the ADM Plant.
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits that it owns a facility located at 1350 Waconia Ave SW in Cedar
`
`Rapids, Iowa 52404. ADM denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 20 not specifically
`
`admitted.
`
`21. Defendant ADM employed Knutson, an independent contractor, to do work.
`
`
`
`6
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 6 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`ANSWER: ADM admits that it engaged Knutson as an independent contractor. ADM
`
`denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 21 not specifically admitted.
`
`22. Defendant ADM recognized or should have recognized such work as likely to
`
`create, during its progress, a peculiar risk of physical harm to others unless special precautions
`
`were taken.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 22.
`
`23. Defendant ADM knew or should have known such work involved a special danger
`
`to others that was inherent in or normal to the work.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 23.
`
`24. Defendant ADM, when hiring Knutson, had a duty to contemplate and account for
`
`such inherent danger when making such contract.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 24.
`
`25. Defendant ADM negligently breached its duty to Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier
`
`generally and specifically by, including but not limited to, the following particulars:
`
`a) Failing to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for an employee of
`
`an independent contractor;
`
`b) Failing to recognize the work of the independent contractor was likely to create
`
`a peculiar risk of physical harm;
`
`c) Failing to take special precautions and creating a peculiar risk for the workers;
`
`d) Failing to use ordinary care;
`
`e) Failing to provide in the contract that the contractor shall take such precautions;
`
`f) Failing to provide safeguards against dangers for which Defendant was
`
`contractually obligated to provide protection;
`
`
`
`7
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 7 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`g) Failing to provide safeguards against dangers for which Defendant was legally
`
`obligating to provide protection;
`
`h) Failing to maintain a safe work environment;
`
`i) Failing to follow policies, procedures, and standards; and
`
`j)
`
`In other manners not yet known but which may become known through the
`
`course of discovery.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies all allegations of Paragraph No. 25, including each of its
`
`subparagraphs (a)-(j).
`
`26.
`
`The negligence of Defendant ADM was a cause of Plaintiff’s damages.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies the allegations of Paragraph No. 26.
`
`27. As a result of the negligence of Defendant ADM, Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier has
`
`suffered and will in the future continue to suffer the following injuries and damages:
`
`a) Past and future medical expenses;
`
`b) Lost earnings;
`
`c) Loss of future earning capacity;
`
`d) Past and future physical and mental pain and suffering; and
`
`e) Past and future loss of full mind and body.
`
`ANSWER: ADM denies all allegations of Paragraph No. 27, including each of its
`
`subparagraphs (a)-(e).
`
`COUNT III: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs replead and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Petition as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`
`
`8
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 8 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`ANSWER: ADM reasserts each of its responses to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 27 of the
`
`Petition as if fully set forth herein.
`
`29. At all times material to this matter, Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier and Plaintiff Pamela
`
`Krogmeier were married and living together as husband and wife.
`
`ANSWER: ADM lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph No. 29, and therefore, ADM denies the allegations of Paragraph
`
`No. 29.
`
`30. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant ADM, Plaintiff Pamela Krogmeier
`
`has and will in the future suffer loss of services, support, companionship, and society of Brian
`
`Krogmeier, her husband.
`
`ANSWER: ADM lacks information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph No. 30, and therefore, ADM denies the allegations of Paragraph
`
`No. 30.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`ADM asserts the following affirmative defenses in response to the allegations and claims
`
`asserted in the Petition and reserves the right to amend or supplement its defenses as additional
`
`information is made available to it in the course of litigation:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims fails to assert a claim for which relief may be granted against
`
`ADM.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 9 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is barred, in whole or in part, because their alleged injuries were
`
`not proximately caused by the acts or omissions of ADM or any person for whom ADM is legally
`
`responsible.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of comparative
`
`fault or contributory negligence.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is barred, in whole or in part, because the Plaintiffs’ alleged
`
`injuries were the sole proximate cause of the conduct of third parties for whom ADM is not legally
`
`responsible, the result of unforeseeable intervening circumstances, or the result of such an unusual
`
`and extraordinary display of nature that could not be expected under normal circumstances.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff Brian Krogmeier
`
`voluntarily undertook the conduct that lead to his injuries with knowledge of the related risks,
`
`dangers, and hazards.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiffs have recovered
`
`compensation for their alleged injuries from a collateral source.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is barred, in whole or in part, for failure to join indispensable
`
`parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 10 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Each of Plaintiffs’ claims is barred, in whole or in part, by their failure to mitigate their
`
`alleged damages.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`Any verdict or judgment rendered against ADM must be reduced by those amounts that
`
`have been, or will, with reasonable certainty, replace or indemnify Plaintiffs, in whole or in part,
`
`for any past or future claimed economic loss, from any collateral source such as insurance, social
`
`security, workers’ compensation, or employee benefit programs.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`NOW WHEREFORE, Defendant Archer-Daniels-Midland Company respectfully requests
`
`that this Court deny all relief sought by the Plaintiffs, dismiss with prejudice the Petition and each
`
`of the Plaintiffs’ claims against ADM, award to ADM the cost and expenses incurred in responding
`
`to the Petition and in defending this suit, and grant to ADM any other relief that this Court deems
`
`just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 11 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Defendant ADM requests a trial by jury on each of the Plaintiffs’ claims so triable.
`
`
`
`December 10, 2020.
`
`FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`/s/ Jacob D. Bylund
`Jacob D. Bylund, AT0001399
`jacob.bylund@faegredrinker.com
`Christopher A. Kreuder, AT0013264
`christopher.kreuder@faegredrinker.com
`801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor
`Des Moines, IA 50309
`Telephone: (515) 447-4708
`Facsimile: (515) 248-9010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 12 of 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically on
`
`December 10, 2020, using the Court’s CM/ECF system and further served by first-class mail,
`
`postage prepaid and properly addressed, to the following:
`
`Tim Semelroth
`Dillon Besser
`RSH LEGAL
`425 2nd Street SE, Suite 1140
`Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BRIAN J. KROGMEIER AND PAMELA
`KROGMEIER
`
`Peter J. Thill
`Lori N. Scardina Utsinger
`BETTY, NEUMAN & MCMAHAN, P.L.C.
`1900 East 54th Street
`Davenport, IA 52807-2708
`ATTORNEYS FOR LIENHOLDERS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
`COMPANY AND AGRINATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`/s/
`
`Jacob D. Bylund
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`Case 1:20-cv-00118-MAR Document 4 Filed 12/10/20 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket