Opinion ID: 6108979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Insurer is Liable for the Enhanced Mesothelioma Benefits

Text: Missouri's workers' compensation law was amended in 2014 to provide enhanced compensation for individuals diagnosed with occupational diseases such as mesothelioma. Section 287.200.4(3). Coverage is provided for all claims filed on or after January 1, 2014, for occupational diseases due to toxic exposure which result in a permanent total disability or death. Section 287.200.4. Employers may either accept or reject liability for mesothelioma. If an employer elects to accept liability, it must insure its entire liability under the act, which includes accepting all of the act's provisions. Section 287.280.1; Allen v. Raftery , 237 Mo.App. 542 , 174 S.W.2d 345 , 350 (1943). In other words, an insurer cannot avoid certain liabilities by constructing its policy to exclude certain provisions of the workers' compensation statute and cover only the provisions it prefers. Employer elected to accept mesothelioma liability under section 287.200.4 and purchased a policy from Insurer to cover these additional benefits by selecting a policy that explicitly contemplated enhanced compensation for mesothelioma claims filed on or after January 1, 2014. The triggering occurrence-the event commencing liability coverage-is the filing of a claim. This Court gives the language in an insurance policy its plain meaning, or the meaning that would be attached by an ordinary purchaser of insurance. Doe Run Res. Corp. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. , 531 S.W.3d 508 , 511 (Mo. banc 2017). An ordinary purchaser of insurance would understand, per its own policy, Insurer covered Employer for all liabilities arising out of all mesothelioma claims filed on or after January 1, 2014-including Mr. Casey's claim, which was filed in February 2015. Insurer nevertheless argues that, irrespective of the plain policy language, it cannot be held liable for the award of compensation because it did not insure Employer in 1990-when Mr. Casey was last exposed to asbestos. Section 287.063.2, deemed the last exposure rule, provides the employer liable for [workers' compensation benefits] shall be the employer in whose employment the employee was last exposed to the hazard of the occupational disease. Insurer's policy itself contains similar limitations, stating the employee's last day of last exposure to the conditions causing or aggravating [the occupational disease] must occur during the policy period. Insurer's policy also states its terms may not be changed except by endorsement issued by us to be part of this policy. The mesothelioma endorsement adopts section 287.200.4 and, as a result, adopts that section's provision of enhanced benefits for occupational disease claims filed on or after January 1, 2014-modifying the policy with respect to these additional mesothelioma benefits. In addition, the policy provides the terms of this insurance that conflict with the workers['] compensation law are changed to conform to that law. Accordingly, any policy provision  purporting to contravene section 287.200.4 or Insurer's acceptance of it is of no effect. Further, the last exposure rule is immaterial here. The policy Employer purchased explicitly covers the benefits proffered by section 287.200.4, which contains no qualifying language as to the date of last exposure or injury and limits coverage only by way of conditioning it on the filing of a claim after January 1, 2014. Through this policy, Employer accepted, and Insurer provided, liability insurance for the enhanced benefits-the only benefits Mr. Casey sought (and Ms. Murphy now seeks). The relevant inquiry in this matter is not under whose employment Mr. Casey was last exposed, but whether the terms of Employer's policy provide coverage. The answer is clear. Insurer provided coverage to Employer by expressly adopting section 287.200.4 into its endorsement. If recovery under section 287.200.4 were limited to individuals who were last exposed to asbestos during the policy period, this policy's mesothelioma endorsement-and similar provisions in countless other insurance policies-would be rendered essentially worthless. 5 It would allow insurance companies to provide illusory, hollow policies. Because individuals are no longer regularly exposed to asbestos in the workplace, the pool of individuals who were last exposed to asbestos in 2015 is miniscule, if any. Further, if an individual was last exposed to asbestos on or after January 1, 2014, it is quite possible that, due to the long latency period of the disease, mesothelioma symptoms would not manifest until long after the enhanced benefits provided under section 287.200.4 have expired. The Commission's decision finding the claim originally filed by Mr. Casey and succeeded by Ms. Murphy was covered under the policy is supported by competent and substantial evidence.