Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mendenhall v. Property & Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 31, 2012No. SC 92202Published

1Dissent

LAURA DENVIR STITH, Judge.

I respectfully dissent. The dispositive issue in this case is whether a third party can “furnish” an employee to an employer by merely recommending or referring him to the employer. In Gavan v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 242 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. banc 2008), this Court addressed the meaning of “furnish” in the same “temporary worker” exception at issue in this case and held that “ ‘furnished to,’ in context and in its plain and ordinary meaning, is not ambiguous and necessarily implies that a third party has been involved in providing or supplying the worker to the insured.”…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Rodriguez v. General Accident Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
  2. GAVAN v. Bituminous Casualty CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 2008
  3. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. AllenConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
  4. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. TickleMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. Brown v. Indiana Insurance Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2005

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API