Blog

Earlier this year, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky in Bowling Green refused to certify a question of law to the Kentucky Supreme Court in a tractor-trailer accident case. The case was Meherg v. Pope. The case centered on a semi-truck accident in which the tractor-trailer allegedly struck a stopped car from behind on Interstate 65 in Hart County. The force of the impact apparently caused the stopped car to hit another vehicle that was carrying three people. As a result of the crash, five individuals were reportedly injured, and a child was killed. About one year after the big rig collision, several of the injured victims filed a gross negligence claim against the truck driver and a respondeat superior claim against the trucking company that employed the truck driver. The doctrine of respondeat superior allows an employer to be held responsible for the negligent acts of an employee when the acts were performed during the course of the worker’s employment. In addition, the plaintiffs accused the trucking company of negligent hiring, training, and supervision of the driver. Three years later, the federal court held that the driver did not commit gross negligence and stated the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate he was reckless. The court also ruled that punitive damages were not warranted in the case. Punitive damages are normally awarded by a court in an effort to punish particularly egregious conduct. They are also designed to deter others from acting similarly in the future. Since the driver admitted to acting negligently, and the trucking company admitted to respondeat superior liability, the Western District of Kentucky stated a trial would be held on the sole issue of any personal injuries sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of the 18-wheeler accident. The federal court also refused to allow the plaintiffs to offer evidence related to the trucking company’s alleged negligent supervision or hiring of the trucker. According to the federal court, most Kentucky courts had previously refused to hold that a negligent training and supervision claim could survive an employer’s admission of respondeat superior liability. The doctrine of respondeat superior allows an employer to be held responsible for the negligent acts of an employee when the acts were performed during the course of the worker’s employment. Read More

State laws vary when it comes to uninsured motorists coverage. Our personal injury attorneys are licensed to practice in both Kentucky and Tennessee and see these type of cases often.In a case decided by the Kentucky Court of Appeals recently, the issue of which state laws applied in an uninsured motorist case was handled by the court. The case is Grange Property and Casualty Company vs. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company. The dispute arose after two motorists were in an accident in Pike County, which is in Eastern Kentucky. Grange Ferlin Pruitt, the operator of one of the vehicles, was driving a vehicle owned by his employer, Drill Steel Services. The other driver,  Allison Comer, had no insurance. Drill Steel Services insured Pruitt's vehicle with Grange Property and Casualty Company, which had policy limits for Uninsured Motorists of $1 million. Pruitt also had a personal insurance policy from Tennessee Farmers, which provided coverage of up to $100,000 for accidents involving uninsured motorists. Allison Comer died as a result of the accident. Pruitt was injured. Comer had crossed the center line and struck Pruitt's vehicle and was responsible for the injuries he suffered, but because Comer was not insured, the only payout he could receive was from his own insurance company's uninsured or underinsured motorists provisions. He settled with Grange, and Grange sought to recover the $100,000 policy limit from Tennessee Mutual, arguing that the company was responsible for the payment under Kentucky's pro-rata law. Tennessee Mutual argued that Tennessee law applied, and Pike County Circuit Court agreed with Tennessee Mutual. Grange appealed the case to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The court agreed that Grange had the greater duty to cover Pruitt, and argued that Grange's policy should pay out first, and Tennessee Mutual's policy would only kick in if damages exceeded $1 million. Drill Steel Services is a Kentucky-based corporation. Read More

Bad Faith claims against a person’s insurance company occurs when the insurance company isn't negotiating fairly with its customers. These claims are often when someone feels they are not getting a settlement offer that's close to what it should be, or sometimes used when someone feels their insurance company isn't paying a claim that it should. Insurance companies are legally required to negotiate fairly - in good faith - with its customers. It's hard even for an experienced attorney to prove exactly what a valid bad faith claim is. How do you prove a person's, or company's, intention? Such cases demand an experienced attorney. A recent Kentucky Court of Appeals case helped set standards for bad faith claims. The case of Samantha Hollaway v. Direct General Insurance Company of Mississippi Inc. involves a parking lot collision in Lexington, Kentucky. Hollaway alleges another driver backed out of a parking spot and hit her; the other driver says Hollaway hit him. Hollaway received a check for damages to her car from Direct General, which amounted to less than $500. She also wanted $125,000 in medical damages, or up to the limit of the other driver's insurance policy. The insurance company reviewed the case and offered $5,000, based on medical records that indicated she had some damage to her back but she also had pre-existing back problems. The insurance company indicated it was not sure if the damages were the result of the accident or were from previous problems. Hollaway was not satisfied with the offer, and instead filed suit against the other motorist and Direct General. The insurance company offered Hollaway $22,500. Hollaway filed a bad faith claim against the company. Her argument was that she was not offered the higher amount until she filed suit and that the insurance company negotiated in "bad faith" with her. Read More

In Boarman v. Grange Indemnity Ins. Co., a man was seriously injured in a motor vehicle collision when another motorist ran a red light and collided with his vehicle. Unfortunately for the injured man, both the driver and the vehicle that struck him were not insured at the time of the accident. Despite this, the man obtained a judgment of more than $90,000 against the other driver for his accident injuries. Since the at-fault motorist was uninsured, the man never collected the damages that were awarded to him. About one month before the man was hurt, his wife obtained a new automobile insurance policy naming both members of the couple as insured drivers. Following the crash, he filed a claim for uninsured motorist coverage from their auto insurer. The insurance company denied the man’s claim because his wife rejected uninsured motorist coverage in writing when she obtained the policy. The man then filed a lawsuit in Daviess County Circuit Court against his insurance company to recover the uninsured motorist benefits he believed he was statutorily entitled to. The man testified at trial that his wife was asked to obtain the same accident coverage the couple held with their previous motor vehicle insurer, which included uninsured motorist coverage. In addition, the injured man claimed that he was a co-applicant who did not reject his statutory right to uninsured motorist coverage, as evidenced by the fact that he did not sign the insurance policy application. Still, he received a copy of the policy and paid insurance premiums that did not include uninsured motorist benefits. Read More

In Putnam v. Medtronic, Inc., an Indiana woman filed a medical product injury lawsuit asserting 15 state-law causes of action in Jefferson County Circuit Court against her Kentucky doctor, the manufacturer of a medical product, and the Kentucky hospital where she underwent spinal fusion surgery. According to the woman’s complaint, the physician used the medical product to treat her in an off-label manner that was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, she accused the manufacturer of the product of intentionally and illegally promoting it for off-label use. The woman claimed she suffered harm as a result of this unapproved use and asked the Circuit Court to award her both compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacturer of the medical product immediately removed the woman’s case to the Western District of Kentucky in Louisville based on diversity of citizenship. The manufacturer also asserted that removal was appropriate because the case involved questions of federal law. In response, the woman filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to state court. In considering the woman’s motion, the U.S. District Court examined the two sources of federal jurisdiction alleged in the case. Diversity jurisdiction is proper when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties hail from different states. Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a lawsuit arises from the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or a treaty the nation is a party to. The U.S. District Court continued by stating the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party that seeks removal, and the case must be remanded if jurisdiction is not proper. Read More

Read Bob Young's column on the importance of keeping up with technology Read More

On Monday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a report indicating that motorists who drive vehicles with airbags made by Takata could be in grave danger. The airbags are designed to inflate and protect motorists in the event of an injury, but instead, they can explode, causing the death of the driver. In at least four instances, motorists have been killed in accidents in which their airbag exploded, covering them in shrapnel. Others have been severely injured. The problems are so dangerous the NHTSA is asking people not to carry passengers in the front seats of the recalled vehicles - but you may not even want to drive these vehicles after reading about these problems. Most of the vehicles are older models, some going back to 2001. Motorists should check their vehicles as soon as possible. The NHTSA recall affects about 4.7 million vehicles throughout the U.S., though safety experts have put the number at 12 million world wide. The recall includes vehicles made by  Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, BMW and General Motors. If you are unsure if your car has been affected by the recall, you can enter the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) on your registration paperwork and enter it at this web site to check: http://www.safercar.gov/. All drivers nationally can use this, including drivers in Kentucky and Tennessee who are concerned with this product recall. You can read the full report and find specifics on the recall here. Read More

In Waltenburg v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., a man received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (“ICD”) that was manufactured by St. Jude Medical, Inc. The electrical ICD device was inserted into the man’s body through a vein and then attached to his heart in an effort to correct irregular heart rhythms. Not long after the device was implanted into the man’s chest, he apparently began experiencing unexpected and unnecessary electrical shocks. Several years later, the man’s physicians reportedly told him that the ICD device implanted into his body was faulty, but it was too risky to remove it. The man filed a products liability lawsuit seeking damages for physical injury and emotional distress from the manufacturer of the ICD in the Western District of Kentucky. In his complaint, the man claimed the medical device manufacturer was strictly liable for the allegedly defective ICD. He also claimed the company manufactured the product in a negligent fashion, negligently failed to warn him about the product defect, and alternately should be held accountable through the doctrine of negligence per se. A negligence per se cause of action normally arises when someone is injured after another party violates a law that was designed to protect the public or a specific class of individuals from the type of harm that the injured person sustained. In general, negligence per se is easier to prove than other types of negligence because the reasonableness of an at-fault actor’s conduct is not at issue. The medical device manufacturer countered by alleging the man’s claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and argued the lawsuit should be dismissed because the man failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Preemption occurs when a state law conflicts with a federal law in such a way that the purpose of the federal law is thwarted. According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law controls in such cases. Read More

The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration just released statistics for 2012 for auto and large truck fatal accidents. There are three reports, which provide a wealth of information about fatal accidents in the U.S. Links to the reports are available here: A state-by-state analysis of all of the data, including large truck and auto accidents: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812033.pdf Data on passenger vehicles: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812070.pdf Information on large truck accidents (gross weight 10,000 pounds or more): http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811868.pdf In this blog post, we'll concentrate on the first report, which analyzes all data from all of the accidents combined. Read More

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has upheld a jury’s verdict in a lawsuit over a tractor-trailer accident. In Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Northland Ins. Co., three tractor-trailers were involved in a Webster County, Kentucky crash. All three vehicles were apparently headed in the same direction when several coal trucks passed them in the left hand lane. According to evidence offered at trial, a cloud of dust obscured the vision of each semi-truck driver after the coal trucks hit a bump in the roadway. After being passed by the coal trucks, the first truck stopped in the roadway and the three big rigs collided. The coal trucks were not involved in the collision. Following the crash, the driver and passenger of the first semi-truck filed a personal injury and property damage claim against the driver and owner of the second tractor-trailer. In turn, the driver and owner of the second vehicle sought damages from the driver of the first truck, his insurance company, and the owner of the coal trucks. Following a jury trial, the driver and owner of the second big rig were held fully responsible for the accident. The owner of the tractor-trailer who was held liable for the collision then filed an appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. According to the second truck's owner, the trial court committed an error when it allowed a state trooper to testify as an expert regarding human factors that allegedly played a role in the collision. The company also claimed that the lower court should have entered a directed verdict in its favor. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals stated it would defer to the trial court’s decision and reverse the case only if exceptional circumstances existed. Then the Kentucky appeals court addressed the appellant’s argument that the trial court had improperly allowed the law enforcement officer to testify about human error by stating that the company had failed to object at the trial court level and preserve its right to challenge his testimony. The court also held that the state trooper’s testimony was permissible because he did not render an opinion regarding who actually caused the collision. In addition, the Kentucky court said the trooper's testimony was more likely to assist jurors in reaching a decision than create prejudice against the owner of the big rig. Read More