270.781.6500

Blog

03.26.2015

Tennessee car wreck case brings choice of law dispute to Tennessee Court of Appeals

The Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville has upheld a choice of law provision that was included in an auto insurance policy. In Williams v. Smith, a couple and their young child were injured in a Putnam County, Tennessee car wreck that was caused by another driver. The accident was a head-on collision. At the time of the accident, the couple was headed east in a vehicle they borrowed from a North Carolina couple. Although the vehicle was registered in North Carolina, the owners of the vehicle secured liability insurance in Missouri in order to cover their college-age daughter while she was away at school. The accident policy included a Missouri choice of law provision and included uninsured motorist coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. The policy did not include underinsured motorist coverage because it is not required under Missouri law. The driver who caused the Tennessee car wreck carried the minimum liability limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per incident as required by Tennessee law. Following the crash, the hurt family sought additional damages from the company that insured the vehicle they borrowed in a Tennessee court. Although the accident occurred in Tennessee, the issue in the case surrounded whether North Carolina or Missouri law applied to the insurance dispute. Since North Carolina requires a driver to carry liability coverage of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident, the at-fault motorist would be considered an uninsured motorist under North Carolina law. If, however, Missouri law controlled, the man was simply an underinsured motorist, and the family was not entitled to collect additional benefits. Read More

03.23.2015

Protecting your home from creditors while you’re still living

Many elderly clients feel the need (and rightfully so) to plan for the protection of their home from creditors, including government interests, during their elder years and after their death. It is too often forgotten the planning tools available that provide benefits now rather than later. In line with our recent posts regarding… Read More

03.19.2015

Tips from a Kentucky estate lawyer: how to pass on memorabilia and collections in your estate

Many people collect all kinds of things, and these collections come to hold tremendous sentimental and in some cases monetary value. As people age, they begin to think about who they would like to have certain items or entire collections, and sometimes, bold relatives or friends suggest they'd like to receive something special to remember you by. Gifts and promises of gifts are also made to honor a special relationship. These type of collections can cause significant arguments after you are deceased. The best way to avoid such disputes is to clearly specify in writing exactly who is to receive what items. Verbally telling a relative or friend what you would like for them to have upon their death, and giving away significant items while you're still living, causes confusion and prompts some to get greedy. It's the last thing anybody wants after they're gone.   Read More

03.18.2015

Warren County car accident case verdict affirmed by Kentucky Court of Appeals

In an unpublished opinion, a couple was apparently injured in a Warren County car accident case that involved three vehicles. According to the couple, they were hurt when their truck was struck from behind by a minivan that was rear-ended by another car while stopped at a traffic light. As a result of their harm, the couple filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver of the minivan and the car operator in Warren County Circuit Court. Prior to trial, the couple resolved their claims against the driver of the car through mediation. Because of this, the motorist did not participate in a subsequent jury trial between the couple and the minivan driver. Still, jurors were provided with apportionment instructions related to both the minivan operator and the car driver at the close of trial. Following trial, the jury issued a verdict stating the driver of the car breached his duty to maintain reasonable control of his vehicle. In addition, the jury absolved the minivan operator of liability. The Warren County Circuit Court then issued a final judgment dismissing the couple’s complaint against the minivan driver. Read More

03.16.2015

Kentucky Appeals Court overturns jury verdict in bike accident case

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial after evidence was improperly excluded in a bike accident case. In Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Thacker, a Pikeville, Kentucky resident was struck by a motor vehicle while riding her bicycle near Palm Beach, Florida. As a result of the crash, the woman endured multiple broken bones and a traumatic head injury. The woman also apparently required psychiatric treatment following the bike accident. After the driver’s liability insurer paid the woman the full policy limits of $20,000 for her accident injuries, she filed a lawsuit in Pike County Circuit Court seeking underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her own auto insurance company. Following a trial, a jury returned a $3.9 million verdict against the woman’s UIM insurer. The jurors also found that the woman was 50 percent responsible for her injuries. The trial court offset the financial compensation the woman received from the motorist’s liability carrier before awarding her more than $1.9 million. The UIM insurer then appealed the jury’s verdict to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More

03.13.2015

Estate Planning: Social Media and the Digital Age

Social media accounts include Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, Foursquare, Vine and many others. Virtually everyone these days has some variety of social media accounts, whether it be Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or some other form of social media (the list appears to be never-ending).  Encompassing more than just social media, nearly everyone has Internet and other electronic accounts that require maintained passwords to access.  What happens to a person’s social media accounts when that person dies?  Who has a right to access the password-maintained accounts?  Fortunately, these issues are starting to receive attention and are being addressed. Facebook now allows its members to designate a “legacy contact” to manage the deceased persons account (to some degree) posthumously, a feature just added a few short months ago.  Facebook's newsroom states: Facebook is a place to share and connect with friends and family. For many of us, it’s also a place to remember and honor those we’ve lost. When a person passes away, their account can become a memorial of their life, friendships and experiences. Today we’re introducing a new feature that lets people choose a legacy contact—a family member or friend who can manage their account when they pass away. Once someone lets us know that a person has passed away, we will memorialize the account and the legacy contact will be able to: Write a post to display at the top of the memorialized Timeline (for example, to announce a memorial service or share a special message) Respond to new friend requests from family members and friends who were not yet connected on Facebook Update the profile picture and cover photo If someone chooses, they may give their legacy contact permission to download an archive of the photos, posts and profile information they shared on Facebook. Other settings will remain the same as before the account was memorialized. The legacy contact will not be able to log in as the person who passed away or see that person’s private messages. Alternatively, people can let us know if they’d prefer to have their Facebook account permanently deleted after death. Read More

03.05.2015

FDA orders drug makers to change labels on Low Testosterone drugs

Earlier this week, the Food and Drug Administration announced it is requiring the manufacturers of low testosterone drugs to change the labels of their products and to conduct further studies about the drugs. The FDA says some studies have indicated there is an increased risk of heart attack, stroke and even death while taking supplemental testosterone, while other studies have not. This has led the FDA to say that more research is needed by the manufacturers of the drugs as well as to require more warning labels on Low Testosterone drugs to better prepare doctors and patients for discussions about taking "Low T" drugs. The FDA specifically called out clinics offering to treat the "signs of aging" in men which are often believed to be linked to gradually decreasing testosterone in the body. While decreasing testosterone may seem to be the culprit of fatigue or other similar problems, there's not been enough research of the side effects of taking Low T drugs simply to fight the signs of aging. The FDA says the drugs should only be used in men who are suffering from low testosterone as a result of "disorders of the testicles, pituitary gland, or brain that cause a condition called hypogonadism." Health care providers should make patients aware of the risk of possible cardiovascular events and even death due to taking testosterone, the FDA says. Read More

03.03.2015

Federal Court refuses to remand Kentucky Uninsured Motorist insurance case

In Helton v. Lelion, a couple sued a driver who was operating a vehicle in which a tire became loose and hit their vehicle. The couple initially filed a negligence lawsuit in Wolfe County Circuit Court against the driver who lost her tire. The allegedly negligent motorist with the loose tire apparently did not carry liability insurance when the accident occurred. Because of this, the injured driver also demanded the full policy limits of her uninsured motorist coverage from her own auto insurer, as well as attorneys’ fees and interest. The defendants removed the uninsured motorist case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in Lexington based on diversity of citizenship. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), a federal court may exercise such jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. In response, the couple filed a motion to remand the case back to a Kentucky state court. Although the plaintiffs agreed that the parties were diverse, they claimed that federal jurisdiction was improper because the amount in controversy did not exceed the statutory minimum. The injured driver also signed a stipulation that the entirety of the damages she sought were less than $75,000. Read More

03.03.2015

IRAs and Kentucky Inheritance Tax Law

Nathan Vinson By Nathan Vinson, Attorney English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley, LLP An Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA) may be a vehicle available to Kentucky residents to avoid Kentucky’s inheritance tax.  The Kentucky inheritance tax is payable by the beneficiaries of a person’s estate, depending on what the beneficiary received and the relationship of the decedent to the beneficiary. “Class A” beneficiaries are exempt from the inheritance tax and include parents, surviving spouses, siblings (whether full or half), children (including adopted children and stepchildren), and grandchildren. “Class B” beneficiaries enjoy a partial exemption from the tax and include aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces (including by the half), daughter-in-laws, son-in-laws, and great-grandchildren (including those who are the grandchildren of adopted children and stepchildren). All other beneficiaries are considered “Class C” beneficiaries and are afforded a nominal exemption from the inheritance tax.  With the highest rate of Kentucky’s inheritance tax being 16%, Class B and Class C beneficiaries may take a big hit if they inherit any sizable amount from the decedent’s estate. Here is where planning opportunities arise using IRAs. Read More

03.01.2015

Life estates and Kentucky inheritance in estate planning

By Nathan Vinson, attorney English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP Life estates have long been an efficient and simple succession planning device for those who want to leave their homes to loved ones when they die. Here is a basic illustration of how it works:  Mom has survived Dad and owns her house outright.  She still lives in the home, which has a value of $300,000.  Mom wants to leave the home to her Son at her death.  So, Mom gives her house to the Son (the “remainder interest”) and reserves the right to live in the home during her life (the “life estate”). Read More