> >
| Case Name | Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 12/30/2011 | |
| Note | An insurer proved that it was entitled to summary judgment against a worker's suit by proving that she was an independent contractor, a California appellate court ruled in a published decision. | |
| Citation | A131440 | |
| WCC Citation | WCC 38392011 CA |
ARNOLD v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY KIMBLY ARNOLD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Kimbly Arnold worked as a nonexclusive insurance agent for Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (Mutual). During her appointment with Mutual, Arnold did not receive performance evaluations, and he did not monitor or supervise her work schedule. At the time Arnold terminated her appointment in March 2008, she owed Mutual approximately $2,288 for such expenses. Her appointment with Mutual was nonexclusive, and she in fact solicited for other insurance companies during her appointment with Mutual.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.
