$300,000.00 Uninsured Motorist Recovery – Mogab and Hughes Attorneys

About a year ago, I received a call from a grade school classmate inquiring whether he had to pay a $28.00 balance on a medical bill that had already been paid by Medicare.  When I inquired as to what the nature of the bill was, he told me that he had sustained burn injuries about three years prior when he was attempting to help a friend prime the carburetor in a vehicle on his friend’s property.  I had previously represented my childhood friend in an automobile accident in 1994 where we recovered $100,000.00, and I also had a successful hearing before an Administrative Law Judge and obtained Social Security Disability benefits for him in 2007 due to his ongoing back and knee problems which prevented him from continuing in his career as a certified automobile mechanic for various dealerships in the St. Louis area, but I had not been in touch with him for a while.

In discussing his situation with him, I explained that he may have a lawsuit, and he indicated that he did not want to do anything which would result in his friend having to pay anything out of his pocket.  I agreed to that, and I filed suit against my client’s friend to determine if there was any liability insurance coverage which would cover this particular incident.  After suit was filed, we determined that his friend’s homeowner’s insurance did not apply because it contained an exclusion which did not provide coverage if the negligent act occurred arising out of the use of a vehicle.  We also determined that his friend’s automobile liability coverage did not apply because we determined that the vehicle that was involved was not a covered vehicle under the terms of his automobile policy.  (This individual had a number of vehicles that he kept on his property that he collected as a hobby, most of which were inoperable.)

After determining there was no available insurance coverage from this individual, we filed a separate lawsuit against my client’s uninsured motorist policy, and after engaging in extensive discovery, we were able to obtain a settlement for all of the available coverage of $300,000.00 from my client’s uninsured motorist carrier.

If you have been injured in an accident and would like to speak with an experienced attorney, please call Thomas Gregory at Mogab & Hughes Attorneys at 314-241-4477.

St. Louis Attorney David Hughes was a Recent Speaker Regarding Mesothelioma and Other Toxic Exposure Claims at the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation Educational Seminar on May 5, 2021

On May 5, 2021, Attorney David Hughes gave his claimant perspective on the most recent developments in Mesothelioma and other toxic exposure claims at the Annual Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation Educational Seminar. He discussed updates on the recent Hegger Case as well as many important issues that remain unanswered in prosecuting toxic exposure claims.

He participated in discussions with a defense attorney regarding Accident Fund Insurance Company; E. J. Cody Company v. E. Robert Casey, Employee/Delores Murphy – 550 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Sup. Ct. 2018) and Vincent Hegger (deceased), et al. v. Valley Farm Dairy Company, et al., 596 S.W.3d 128 and Hayden v. Cut-Zaven, Ltd. and Papillion, Ltd., E.D. 108695 (Motion for Application to Transfer to Missouri Supreme Court was denied).

David’s Toxic Exposure & Workers’ Compensation in Missouri – The Claimant’s Perspective Presentation can be found here: Attorney David G. Hughes Mesothelioma & Asbestosis Presentation 5-2021

If you have been exposed to Asbestos while working in Missouri and have Mesothelioma or Asbestosis, call Attorney David Hughes at 314-241-4477.

Current Missouri Mesothelioma and Asbestosis Workers’ Compensation Law and Benefits – By Attorney David Hughes

On May 22, 2018, the Missouri Supreme Court en banc decided Accident Fund National Insurance Company; E. J. Cody Company, Inc. v. E. Robert Casey, Employee/Delores Murphy.  550 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Sup. Ct. 2018).  The Supreme Court decided that because Mr. Casey’s exposure to asbestos occurred while he was employed by E. J. Cody Company, Inc., its insurer, Accident Fund National Insurance Company, was liable for benefits under Section 287.200.4, R.S.Mo. 2014.  Id. at 80.  The Supreme Court noted that the Missouri worker’s compensation law was amended in 2014 to provide enhanced compensation for individuals diagnosed with occupational disease such as mesothelioma, and that coverage is provided for “all claims filed on or after January 1, 2014, for occupational diseases due to toxic exposure which result in permanent total disability or death.”  Id.  The Court further held that Section 287.200 was constitutional as applied. Id. at 82.

In Vincent Hegger v. Valley Farm Dairy, decided by the Missouri Supreme Court on February 18, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Commission’s Decision and explained that employers who had elected to accept mesothelioma liability under R.S.Mo. 287.200.4 are not subject to civil liability for the occupational disease caused by toxic exposure.  No. SC97993, Pages 4-5.  The Supreme Court discussed that the difference between the Hegger and Casey cases was that in Casey, the employer was still in business when Casey filed his claim, and the employer was covered under a policy of insurance that included an endorsement entitled “Missouri Notification of Additional Mesothelioma Benefits.” Id. at 7.

Hayden v. Cut-Zaven was decided by the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District on September 22, 2020.  No. ED108695.  The Eastern District held that the claimant must produce evidence establishing a causal connection between the conditions of employment and the occupational disease.  Id. at Page 16.  There must also be evidence that establishes “a probability that working conditions caused the disease, although they need not be the sole cause,” and that “the claimant does not need to establish by medical certainty that his or her injury was caused by an occupational disease in order to be eligible for compensation.” Id.

In Landis v. St. Luke’s Hospital, et al., Injury Number 17-098196 (affirmed by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission on April 16, 2020), The Honorable Kenneth J. Cain held that the trier of fact may make reasonable inferences from the evidence of mesothelioma. Wagner v. Bondex Int’l, Inc., 368 S.W.3d 340 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).  Id. at Page 14.  Judge Cain further held that the employee shall be conclusively deemed to have been exposed to the hazards of an occupational disease “when for any length of time, however short, he is employed in an occupation or process in which the hazard of the disease exists.”  Id. at Page 15.  Further, 287.063(2) states the employer liable for the compensation “shall be the employer in whose employment the employee was last exposed to the hazard of the occupational disease prior to evidence of disability, regardless of the length of time of such last exposure.”  Id.  Judge Cain also held that absolute proof of asbestos in a particular workplace is not required, and that per R.S.Mo. 287.063.1 (2005), the employee shall be conclusively deemed to have been exposed to the hazards of an occupational disease when, for any length of time, however short, he is employed in an occupation or process in which the hazard of the disease exists. Id. at Page 16, Footnote #9.

If you have been exposed to Asbestos while working in Missouri and have Mesothelioma or Asbestosis, call Attorney David Hughes at 314-241-4477.