Case Name: Carol O'LAUGHLIN, Appellant, v. GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and B & B Construction Company, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-03-27
Citations: 40 S.W.3d 403
Docket Number: No. ED 78416
Parties: Carol O’LAUGHLIN, Appellant, v. GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and B & B Construction Company, Respondents.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 40
Pages: 403–403

Head Matter:
Carol O’LAUGHLIN, Appellant, v. GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and B & B Construction Company, Respondents.
No. ED 78416.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
March 27, 2001.
James J. Logan, Timothy A. Engelmeyer, Chesterfield, MO, for appellant.
Jerome C. Simon (General), St. Louis, MO, Victor T. Avellino, (B & B), Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Carol O'Laughlin (O'Laughlin) appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing her claim against General American Life Insurance Company (General American) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 287.040, RSMo 1994, and granting summary judgment in favor of B & B Construction Company (B & B) and against O'Laughlin on her claim against B <& B. O'Laughlin contends the trial court erred in finding that she was a statutory employee of General American and thus dismissing her claim against General American for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was no evidence that O'Laughlin's duties were in General American's "usual business." O'Laughlin also contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of B & B because there were genuine issues of material fact as to B & B's contractual duty.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).