`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`