It appears from a non-final Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion that Kentucky would hold the workers' compensation exclusion applicable and would follow the interpretation of "temporary worker" found in Tickle. See Indiana Ins. Co. v. Brown, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2003 WL 23008788 (Ky.Ct.App. 2003). Nevertheless, under Kentucky rules a non-final opinion shall not be cited as authority in any of the courts of the Commonwealth.
Nautilus argues that the phrase "furnished to you" is not ambiguous when interpreted in light of the purpose of the employer's liability exclusion. See Indiana Ins. Co. v. Brown, No. 2003-CA-000113-MR, 2003 WL 23008788 (Ky.App.Ct. December 24, 2003);Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 850 A.2d 1047, 1057 (Conn.Super.Ct. 2003) (holding that under Connecticut law, "[t]he language of this section is clear and unambiguous. A temporary worker is a person who `must be furnished' to the insured to substitute for a permanent employee on leave or to meet seasonal or short-term workload conditions. [The employer] did not go to a headhunter, employment agency manpower service provider or any similar service to employ and or to utilize [the worker's] services. [The worker] was not employed by anyone who lent or furnished him to [the employer] as an employee."); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tickle, 99 S.W.3d 25, 30 (Mo.App.Ct. 2003) (applying a grammatical analysis, under Missouri law, to hold that "[t]here is no ambiguity in the relationship of `is furnished' to its modifier `to meet seasonal or short-term workload conditions.'").