287.300. Employer's liability primary or secondary — notice and service, when sufficient. — If the employer is not insured his liability hereunder shall be primary and direct. If he is insured his liability shall be secondary and indirect, and his insurer shall be primarily and directly liable hereunder to the injured employee, his dependents or other persons entitled to rights hereunder. On the request of the division or the commission and at every hearing the employer shall produce and furnish it with a copy of his policy of insurance, and on demand the employer shall furnish the injured employee, or his dependents, with the correct name and address of his insurer, and his failure to do so shall be prima facie evidence of his failure to insure, but the presumption shall be conclusively rebutted by an entry of appearance of his insurer. Both the employer and his insurer shall be parties to all agreements or awards of compensation, but the same shall not be enforceable against the employer, except on motion and proof of default by the insurer. Service on the employer shall be sufficient to give the division or the commission jurisdiction over the person of both the employer and his insurer, and the appearance of the employer in any proceeding shall also constitute the appearance of his insurer, provided that after appearance by an insurer, the insurer shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings hereunder.
Notes of Decisions
Kelley v. Banta & Stude Const. Co., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Section 287.300 RSMo 1994. They also noted Banta & Stude, employer, was at all times insured for worker’s compensation liability.”
Pennington v. Deca Prop. Mgmt. Co., 109 S.W.3d 235 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 9× “If he is insured his liability shall be secondary and indirect, and his insurer shall be primarily and directly liable hereunder to the injured employee, his dependents or other persons entitled to rights hereunder.”
Tunstill v. Eagle Sheet Metal Works, 870 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “with some insurance carrier authorized to insure such liability in this state,” that [§ 287.300] makes the insurer “primarily and directly liable .”
Mikel v. Pott Indus./St. Louis Ship, 910 S.W.2d 323 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “Section 287.300 provides that service on the employer shall be sufficient to give Commission jurisdiction “over the person of both the employer and his insurer.”
Woodruff v. Tourville Quarry, Inc., 381 S.W.2d 14 (Mo. Ct. App. 1964).
· cites it 3× “Appellant refers to those provisions of § 287.300, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. which provide that service on the employer should be sufficient to give the commission jurisdiction over the persons of both the employer and his insurer and the appearance of the employer shall constitute…”
Mikel v. Pott Indus./St. Louis Ship, 896 S.W.2d 624 (Mo. 1995).
“§§ 287.300, .035. Accordingly, if Pott’s proof-of-claim forms submitted to the insolvency court were timely and sufficient to invoke coverage for Mikel’s claim, then the association is obligated to Mikel to the same extent that Midland would have been obligated had it not become…”
Smith v. Donco Constr., 182 S.W.3d 693 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
“banc 1995); see also §§ 287.300 and 287.035.4. 5 . Likewise, "[t]he claimant bears the burden of proving a direct causal relationship between the conditions of his employment and an occupational disease.”
West v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 264 F. Supp. 697 (E.D. Mo. 1966).
“It is true that this case does not deal with the situation where the insurer is alleged to have been negligent with regard to the original injury itself, nor *702 does it deal with a situation where no Workmen's Compensation has been claimed or received.”
Louden v. Richmond Life Ins. Co., 497 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “§ 287.300 provides that where the employer’s liability is insured the insurer shall be primarily and directly liable, whereas if the employer is not insured the employer’s liability is primary and direct.”
Brewer v. Repub. Drywall, 145 S.W.3d 506 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
“banc 1995); §§ 287.300, 287.035. 3 .Allen’s letter, dated August 17, 1992, set out that: "After reviewing the underwriting file we have determined that the coverage for policy C3570472 expired 8-2-91 and was not renewed.”
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.