The Court overruled all of Plaintiff’s arguments and objections. banc 2012), Plaintiff argued that neither RDM’s client nor its insurance agent could authenticate the insurance policies because they were drafted by another company. Plaintiff also argued that our client’s insurance policies are hearsay, and to be admissible, the foundation affidavit authenticating the policies must satisfy Missouri’s business records hearsay exception codified in RSMo. Plaintiff opposed our client’s motion by filing a series of responses, including a motion to strike the client’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that it did not comply with Rule 74 of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. As part of our client’s argument that Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was controlled by the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law, our client produced several insurance policies that provided additional Mesothelioma Benefits Endorsement in order to establish it had the requisite coverage in place as required by the statute. RDM’s client moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity from suit under the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine. The case began when Plaintiff filed a negligence claim and a premise liability claim, alleging that exposure to asbestos at a high-rise office building in the late 1970s caused her to develop mesothelioma.

Rasmussen Dickey Moore attorneys, led by member attorney Vincent Gunter, successfully prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a client in early June.

Rdm business case study