Larson discusses several Illinois cases. In Nutt v. Pierce Waste Oil Service, Inc., 112 Ill. App. 3d 612 (1983), the plaintiff received worker's compensation from his employer, Industrial Fuels. He brought a personal injury action against two corporate defendants, Pierce Oil Services, Inc., and Central Refining Co. All three of the companies were commonly owned. Industrial Fuels paid the plaintiff's wages and owned the garage where the plaintiff worked for six years ( Larson posits that the term of employment was for six months but this is an error.

Illinois courts have identified several factors as bearing on whether a borrowed-employment relationship exists. The factors include the extent of an allegedly borrowing employer's control over a plaintiff ( M M Electric Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1974), 57 Ill.2d 113, 116-17, 119, 311 N.E.2d 161, 163, 164; Freeman v. Augustine's Inc. (1977), 46 Ill. App.3d 230, 233-34, 360 N.E.2d 1245, 1247-48); whether the allegedly borrowing employer had power to discharge a plaintiff ( M M Electric Co., 57 Ill.2d at 119, 311 N.E.2d at 164; Emma v. Norris (1970), 130 Ill. App.2d 653, 657, 264 N.E.2d 573, 577); whether a plaintiff consented or acquiesced to the alleged loan of services ( M M Electric Co., 57 Ill.2d at 119, 311 N.E.2d at 164; Nutt v. Pierce Waste Oil Service, Inc. (1983), 112 Ill. App.3d 612, 616, 445 N.E.2d 928, 931; Emma, 130 Ill. App.2d at 657, 659, 264 N.E.2d at 577, 579); the terms of any written contract between the two alleged employers, though the contract is not conclusive ( Emma, 130 Ill. App.2d at 657, 659, 264 N.E.2d at 577, 578); the length of service for the allegedly borrowing employer ( Nutt, 112 Ill. App.3d at 616, 445 N.E.2d at 931; Freeman, 46 Ill. App.3d at 234, 360 N.E.2d at 1248); the identity of the party for whom the employee's services are being performed ( Freeman, 46 Ill. App.3d at 234, 360 N.E.2d at 1248); and manner of hiring ( Mosley v. Northwestern Steel Wire Co. (1979), 76 Ill. App.3d 710, 719, 394 N.E.2d 1230, 1237). It is also said that a change in the nature of one's work, from the first employer's usual work to some special or different work for the second employer, will indicate borrowed employment. Mosley, 76 Ill. App.3d at 720, 394 N.E.2d at 1238.

The holding in Wodogaza reflects the view of virtually all the courts that have considered whether a subsidiary or affiliate corporation is immune from a tort claim asserted by the employee of a parent or affiliate corporation. See, e.g., Joyce v. SuperFresh Food Markets, Inc., 815 F.2d 943, 946-49 (3d Cir. 1987); Monroe v. Monsanto Co., 531 F. Supp. 426, 431-33 (D.S.C. 1982); Thomas v. Hycon, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 151, 154-56 (D.D.C. 1965); Gaber v. Franchise Servs., Inc., 680 P.2d 1345, 1346-47 (Colo.Ct.App. 1984); Nutt v. Pierce Waste OilServ., Inc., 112 Ill. App.3d 612, 68 Ill.Dec. 284, 285-87, 445 N.E.2d 928, 929-31 (1983); Smith v. Cotton's Fleet Serv.,Inc., 500 So.2d 759, 761-63 (La. 1987); Dolan v. KentResearch Mfg. Co., 63 Md. App. 55, 491 A.2d 1226, 1231-32, cert. denied, 304 Md. 298, 498 A.2d 1185 (1985); Belen v.Dawson, 52 Mich. App. 670, 217 N.W.2d 910, 911-12 (1974). Only two New Jersey cases have addressed the question of workers' compensation immunity based solely on corporate affiliation, and in both cases the courts denied immunity.

d by the parent was insufficient to establish an employment relationship in the absence of an express or implied contract of hire. Of similar effect and with similar result, see: Joyce v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc., supra, 815 F.2d 943, (suit by employee of a subsidiary against related subsidiary); Boggs v. Blue Diamond Coal Co., supra, 590 F.2d 655; Stoddard v. Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 314 (C.D.Cal. 1980) (overwhelming weight of authority is that parent/subsidiary or subsidiary/sibling corporations are separate entities not to be treated as joint employers); Choate v. Landis Tool Co., supra, 486 F. Supp. 774; O'Brien v. Grumman Corp., 475 F. Supp. 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); Thomas v. Hycon, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 151 (D.D.C. 1965) (joint employment requires a contract of hire express or implied, between the employee and the dual or borrowing employer irrespective of any arrangement between the two employers); Gaber v. Franchise Services, Inc., Colo. App., 680 P.2d 1345 (1984); Nutt v. Pierce Waste Oil Service, Inc., 112 Ill. App.3d 612, 68 Ill. Dec. 284, 445 N.E.2d 928 (1983); and Hearn v. Petra Intern. Corp., Okla.App., 710 P.2d 769 (1985). With respect to the paycheck, the court said:

For purposes of the Act, if control of an employee is shared by two employers, then the worker is considered to be an employee of both employers, or a "joint employee." Schmidt v. Milburn Bros., 296 Ill. App. 3d 260, 266 (1998); Nutt v. Pierce Waste Oil Service, Inc., 112 Ill. App. 3d 612, 615-16 (1983); Freeman v. Augustine's Inc., 46 Ill. App. 3d 230, 233 (1977). ¶ 45 In Dildine v. Hunt Transportation, Inc., 196 Ill. App. 3d 392 (1990), the plaintiff was injured while making repairs on a cab company's (Happy Cab) automobile. After the plaintiff filed for and received workers' compensation benefits, he filed a negligence action against the company (Hunt) which owned the building where Happy Cab housed its garage.

See Barazza v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., 294 Ill. App.3d 545-46, 690 N.E.2d at 615-16. In Nutt v. Pierce Waste Oil Service, Inc., 112 Ill. App.3d 612, 615-16, 445 N.E.2d 928 (1983), the court distinguished "joint" employees and "borrowed" employees. A "joint employee" relationship will exist, said the court, "[w]here control of an employee is shared by two employers and both benefit from the work."

Further, Hunt owned the garage where the explosion occurred and Hunt had an insurance policy that included Happy Cab employees. Based on these facts, we cannot find that the trial court erred in finding that, as a matter of law, Dildine was a joint employee of both Hunt and Happy Cab. • 5 The plaintiff relies heavily on this court's ruling in Nutt v. Pierce Waste Oil Services, Inc. (1983), 112 Ill. App.3d 612, wherein this court stated that no supreme court case has found a joint employer relationship to exist when the salary is provided on a unilateral basis. In the instant case, Happy Cab paid Dildine for the work he performed.