Mendenhall v. Property & Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford

Summary

The Missouri Supreme Court considered whether a worker killed while using a family business's insured vehicle was an excluded employee or a covered temporary worker under the Hartford policy. The court held that the policy's phrase "furnished to" was ambiguous and that the worker qualified as a temporary worker, reversing the summary judgment for Hartford and remanding the case.

Holdings

1. The phrase "furnished to" is ambiguous because it is reasonably susceptible to interpretations that do and do not require an employment-agency or similar employment relationship between the third party and the worker.
2. Mendenhall was furnished to Walker by the Family Center through its referral and was therefore a temporary worker covered by the Hartford policy.
3. Summary judgment for Hartford was improper and must be reversed because the policy covered Mendenhall as a temporary worker.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the policy phrase "furnished to" in the definition of a covered temporary worker requires an employment-agency or similar employment relationship between the third party and the worker.
2. Whether, under the undisputed facts, Mendenhall was furnished to Walker by the Family Center and therefore qualified as a covered temporary worker rather than an excluded employee.
3. Whether summary judgment for Hartford was proper.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded