In Simpson v Dale E. Saunchegrow Co., 965 S.W.2d 899 (Mo.App. S.D. 1998), the insurer showed that cancellation was done by certified mail under the contract. The filing of a WORKERS’ COMPENSATION-75 is ministerial in nature and does not constitute a prerequisite to effective cancellation.
In Smith v Distribution Transportation Services, 2001, the case involved the owner/operator exclusion under Section 287.020.1 and whether a company can elect to provide coverage for an owner/ operator under Section 287.090.2. The ALJ ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits under the owner/operator exclusion and agreed that an employer/employee relationship must exist before there can be an election of coverage under Section 287.090.2. The case involved the claimant, owner/operator who entered into a truck contract agreement with DTS in which both the claimant and DTS acknowledged that the intent of the parties was to create a relationship of carrier and independent contractor and not an employee-employer relationship. (ALJ Dinwiddie)
In Nichols v Mama Stuffeati’s, 965 S.W.2d 171 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997), once an insurer admitted a policy once existed, it was the insurer’s burden of proof to show that cancellation had been effective under the terms of the contract. A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION-75 form is required by law to be sent to the DWC upon cancellation and insurer failed to do so.
(Comment: it seems that the opinion of the Western District and Southern District may be in conflict)