The opinion
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR TRANSFER
PER CURIAM:
By motion for rehearing or transfer, Plaintiff argues that we have ignored our recent decision in Greenwood v. Sheffield, 895 S.W.2d 169 (Mo.App.1995), and that it com *40 pels a different result in this case. We disagree. Greenwood is factually dissimilar.
In Greenwood , a single-count petition named Sears Roebuck and Company and their district manager, Sherfield, as defendants. The Greenwoods’ claim against Sears was grounded in respondeat superior principles and allegations, i.e., that it was liable for Sherfield’s actions. Both defendants moved to compel arbitration of the claims asserted against them. The trial court overruled the motion, holding that the Greenwoods’ cause of action arose out of circumstances separate and apart from the agreement that contained the arbitration provision. After Sears and Sherfield filed their notice of appeal, the Greenwoods moved to dismiss their appeal. We quote verbatim the pertinent portion of the Greenwoods’ argument for dismissal.
“[T]he denial of Appellant’s [sic] motion to compel arbitration is not a final appeal-able order or judgment. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 512.020 (1986). Finality is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction, and an order is not ‘final’ unless it disposes of all parties, explicitly disposes [of] all issues, and disposes of all issues on the merits. Specifically, an order that does not adjudicate the merits is not final for purposes of appeal because it does not finally dispose of the claim. The trial court order denying Appellant’s [sic] motion ... to compel arbitration did not finally dispose of Respondent’s [sic] claim on the merits. Therefore, Appellant [sic] may not appeal from this order.” (Emphasis added; citations omitted.)
Relying entirely on Madden v. Ellspermann, 813 S.W.2d 51 (Mo.App.1991), we rejected the foregoing argument and denied the Greenwoods’ motion to dismiss.
In Madden , the plaintiff sued Kidder, Peabody & Co, Inc., and its office manager, Ellspermann, in a three-count petition. As was true in Greenwood , there were no allegations in Madden’s petition as to any individual acts taken by Ellspermann beyond the scope of his employment. 813 S.W.2d at 52 . Both Kidder, Peabody & Co. and Ellsper-mann moved for an order compelling arbitration. The trial court ordered arbitration of Madden’s claims against Kidder, Peabody & Co. but overruled the motion of Ellspermann. Ellspermann appealed, contending that Madden signed a form that required the dispute between him and Madden be submitted to arbitration. Id. On appeal, Madden argued that the order denying Ellspermann’s request for arbitration was not appealable because § 512.020 allowed only appeal from a final judgment and the order refusing to submit the dispute to arbitration was not a final judgment. The Madden court disposed of that argument thusly:
“There is a conflict between § 435.440 and § 512.020 because the former allows an appeal from an order which does not constitute a final judgment while the latter requires a final judgment before an appeal is allowed. When there is a conflict between two statutes, one of which deals with a subject in a general way and the second treats a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the specific statute will govern. Section 512.020 deals with appeals in a general way but § 435.440 deals specifically with an appeal from an order denying an application to compel arbitration. In that instance the special statute allowing an appeal from an order denying arbitration will prevail and the order denying arbitration in this case is appealable.”
813 S.W.2d at 53 [1, 2] (citations omitted).
In both Madden and Greenwood , the motions to compel arbitration encompassed all parties and all claims; thus neither of those cases involves the specific situation identified in Rule 74.01(b) regarding multiple claims. See MLJ Investments, Inc. v. Reid, 877 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Mo.App.1994). As in Madden and Greenwood , there are no allegations in Plaintiffs petition as to any individual acts taken by Brown beyond the scope of his employment; yet, by his motion Plaintiff seeks to resolve his claims against Four Seasons through arbitration while at the same time leaving his claims against Brown open for resolution through the judicial process or by a future motion to compel arbitration. Rule 74.01 operates to prevent that practice.
Plaintiffs motion for rehearing or, in the alternative, for transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri is denied.