287.440. Limitation begins to run, when. — Where recovery is denied to any person in a suit brought at law or in admiralty to recover damages in respect of bodily injury or death on the ground that the person was an employee and the defendant was an employer subject to and within the meaning of this chapter, or when recovery is denied to any person in an action brought under the provisions of a workers' compensation law of any other state or jurisdiction on the ground that the person was an employee under and subject to the provisions of this chapter, the limitation of time prescribed in section 287.430 shall begin to run from the date of the ultimate termination or abandonment of such suit or compensation proceeding, when such suit or compensation proceedings are filed within two years after the filing by the employer of the report of injury or death complained of, or in case payments have been made on account of the injury or death, within two years from the date of the last payment.
Notes of Decisions
Oberreiter v. Fullbright Trucking Co., 117 S.W.3d 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 31× “On August 31, 1998, claimants appealed to this court, contending that the Commission erred in finding that their claim was barred by the statute of limitations, because the statute of limitations was tolled by section 287.440 RSMo 1986 1 while their wrongful death suit was…”
Ming v. Gen. Motors Corp., 130 S.W.3d 665 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 16× “Section 287.440. The parties agree that only the second lawsuit filed against GM in 1997 is eligible to toll the statute of limitations for filing the compensation claim under this section: it was an action at law for damages resulting from bodily injury, and recovery was denied…”
Oberreiter v. Fullbright Trucking, 24 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 21× “The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, but found the ALJ did not have subject matter jurisdiction to make any findings on the merits. On August 31,1998, Claimants appealed to this court, arguing the Commission erred in…”
Oberreiter v. Fullbright Trucking, 991 S.W.2d 721 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 9× “Oberreiter argues that the Commission misinterpreted section 287.440 RSMo 1986 2 because that section suspends the running of the statute of limitations while an inconsistent cause of action arising from the same event is still pending.”
Zahn v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 655 S.W.2d 769 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
“If plaintiff brings a claim before the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, under § 287.440, the commission is not bound by the circuit court’s determination that the commission had ex- *774 elusive jurisdiction.”
Lámar v. Ford Motor Co., 409 S.W.2d 100 (Mo. 1966).
· cites it 2× “, fixing the time at which the period of limitation of a claim for compensation begins to run “where recovery is denied to any person in a suit brought at law or in admiralty to recover damages in respect of bodily injury or death on the ground that such person was an employee…”
Kiphart v. Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 729 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
“, 46 ALR3d 1279; 96 ALR3d 1064 (1979) — willful conduct; § 287.440 R.S.Mo.1986; Wedemeier v. St. Louis Malleable Casting Co.”
Welborn v. S. Equip. Co., 395 S.W.2d 119 (Mo. 1965).
“This construction is further fortified by the terms of § 287.440 which provides another event that may mark the beginning of the statutory period which is the termination of a damage suit or Workmen’s Compensation claim filed in another state, but the provision regarding…”
Hoffmeister v. Tod, 349 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. 1961).
“430; § 287.440). In many cases, when the Division at Jefferson City receives a Report of Injury it sets a conference before the nearest “Legal Adviser” and sends out notices to the employee, the employer, and the insurer; at that time it fills in portions of a blank form…”
Minor v. Apcoa, Inc., 31 S.W.3d 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Section 287.440 provides "Where recovery is denied to any person in a suit brought at law or in admiralty to recover damages in respect of bodily injury or death on the ground that the person was an employee and the defendant was an employer subject to and within the meaning of…”
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.