Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.290 (2026)

Employee not to pay cost of insurance

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

287.290. Employee not to pay cost of insurance. — No part of the cost of such insurance shall be assessed against, collected from or paid by any employee.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3714)

Prior revision: 1929 § 3324

(1963) Where city failed to maintain minimum security required for self-insurer claimant had right to common law action for damages or to pursue remedy for compensation and city would not be permitted to claim that claimant, whose common law action had been dismissed on city's representation that it was a self-insurer, by thereafter filing claim for compensation had elected to pursue that remedy in absence of knowledge of true facts concerning city's status. Fisher v. City of Independence (Mo.), 370 S.W.2d 310.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1968–2013 · leading case: Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. New Prime, Inc., 133 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Owner Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. New Prime, Inc., 133 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “” The trial court granted Prime’s motion to dismiss, finding that Appellants had no private right of action to enforce § 287.290, RSMo 2000, the section of the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law Appellants alleged Prime had violated, and that Appellants failed to state a claim…”

Treasurer of the State v. Witte, 414 S.W.3d 455 (Mo. 2013). · cites it 2× “See section 287.290. Mr. Salviccio’s disability due to his diabetes meets the 50-week threshold to trigger the fund’s liability.”

Burgess v. NaCom Cable Co., 923 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “Particular note is taken of the language of Section 287.290 RSMo which is relevant. No part of the cost of such insurance shall be assessed against, collected from or paid by any employee.”

Sanders v. St. Clair Corp., 943 S.W.2d 12 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “No issue is raised about the prohibition of § 287.290, RSMo 1986, against any part of the cost of workers' compensation insurance being assessed against, collected from, or paid by any employee.”

Williams v. SN Long Warehouse Co., 426 S.W.2d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 3× “Section 287.290 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. specifically provides that no part of the cost of the employer’s compensation insurance shall be assessed against, collected from or paid by any employee.”

Sisco v. Bd. of Trus. of Police Retire. Sys., 31 S.W.3d 114 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “In his second point, Officer Sisco argues the setoff was improper because it effectively forces him to fund his workers’ compensation benefits in violation of section 287.290, which provides, “No part of the cost of [workers’ compensation] insurance shall be assessed against,…”

Sturma v. Gen. Installation Co. of Missouri-Illinois, 739 S.W.2d 586 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). “Appellant’s second point is that the Commission erroneously allowed a multiplicity factor.”

Kellogg v. United Benefit Life Ins., 516 S.W.2d 45 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “10, Constitution of Missouri (1945) and § 287.290 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.; Point IV, the employer is not subject to the Missouri Workmen’s Compensation Law but is subject to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act; and Point V, even if the employer is found to be under the Missouri…”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.290(1) — 1 case

Sturma v. Gen. Installation Co. of Missouri-Illinois, 739 S.W.2d 586 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987). “Appellant’s second point is that the Commission erroneously allowed a multiplicity factor.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.