270.781.6500

accident

12.01.2016

Owned-but-not-scheduled-for-coverage insurance exclusions permissible in Kentucky

How much do you know about your insurance coverage? For instance, if you have two cars insured under separate uninsured/underinsured motorist policies, do you assume that you are covered under both policies for an accident in either vehicle? Or do you know that there may be an insurance exclusion that applies? This issue was the subject of a recent Kentucky Supreme Court case in which the justices strongly disagreed about whether an "average American" could understand certain exclusions in two insurance policies issued to a man who was later hurt by an underinsured driver. Read More

10.19.2016

Tennessee Court holds that plaintiff’s bus injury case fails due to lack of evidence

Pursuant to the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, certain governmental entities can be held liable for damages resulting from their negligence. In this bus injury case, the plaintiff won the first round, but a higher court overturned the ruling. In order to succeed in such a negligence case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, that the defendant engaged in conduct that amounted to a breach of that duty, that the plaintiff sustained an injury or loss, and that there was causation (both causation in fact and proximate or legal causation). If any of these elements fails, so does the plaintiff's cause of action. Read More

10.06.2016

Kentucky Court says executrix can’t collect both uninsured motorist and liability insurance coverage

When a person is involved in a motor vehicle accident, he or she typically expects there to be a dispute about who was at fault or how much the claim is worth. What most people do not expect, however, is that a "routine" car accident case can quickly escalate into a battle with one's own insurance company. A recent case decided by Kentucky's intermediate court of appeals illustrates the difficulties that can arise when an insured's expectations as to what is provided under a policy do not line up with the language of the actual document. The case came down to what type of insurance would be paying the claim: uninsured motorist or liability insurance coverage. Read More

08.30.2016

Kentucky Court holds that case qualifies for Underinsured Motorist Coverage

It is always a good idea to carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage insurance, but settling a UM/UIM claim can be more complicated than it might initially seem. This is true even when the claimant is the insured person, but settlements can be even more difficult when a person other than the insured is seeking to recover UM/UIM benefits. The Kentucky Court of Appeals was recently presented with a rather unusual UIM case filed by the friend of the insured under a policy issued by State Farm. Read More

08.18.2016

Kentucky Court finds no duty of care was owed to family involved in fatal drunk driving accident

The obvious defendant in a motor vehicle accident case is the person whose negligent driving caused the wreck. However, for a variety of reasons, it is possible that other defendants may be named in some lawsuits. In a fatal drunk driving accident, the plaintiff may want to sue those besides the driver who the plaintiff believes is partially responsible for the state of intoxication the driver was in. It is usually to the plaintiff's advantage to name as many potential defendants as possible in order to increase the chances of a settlement or judgment, especially if some defendants may be be uninsured, underinsured, or immune from suit. Read More

03.31.2016

Underinsured motorist case filed in wrong state court

One of the first things that future attorneys learn in law school is that a court must have jurisdiction before it can act in a particular case. This power of the court to act is two-fold. The court must have both personal jurisdiction (power over the persons or corporations named in the suit), and it must have subject matter jurisdiction (authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter). If either is missing, the court lacks the power to adjudicate the matter and must dismiss the case. In the recent unpublished opinion of Taylor v. Bristol West Insurance Company, the Jefferson Circuit Court was called upon to decide whether a Kentucky trial court had jurisdiction over an insurance company that issued a motor vehicle insurance policy to an Indiana resident who was later involved in a car accident in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Read More

03.01.2016

Adding defendants to tractor-trailer accident lawsuit barred by Tennessee statute of limitations

In lawsuits involving motor vehicle accidents, it is not unusual for there to be multiple defendants. Sometimes, this is because two or more drivers' negligence may have contributed to the accident. It can also happen when a driver was on the job at the time of the accident. In this tractor-trailer accident case, just getting to the heart of who was responsible was difficult. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held liable for the tortious acts of a servant, agent or employee. This includes negligent driving. Discovering all of the possible defendants in a case can be a complex endeavor that may take some time. This is one of the reasons that it is best to contact an attorney as soon as possible after an accident. Read More

01.12.2016

Federal Court rules insured’s bad faith claim failed under Kentucky Law

By Kyle Roby, Attorney and Partner English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP It often comes as a surprise to those injured in car accidents that dealing with one's own insurance company can be just as vexing and contentious as dealing with the insurance company of the driver whose negligence or recklessness caused the accident. Fortunately, the law does provide some protection for insureds who have to fight with their own insurance company to get that to which they are contractually entitled. However, the threshold for success in such cases is high, and not every case results in a judgment in the insured's favor. Read More

12.17.2015

Tennessee Court of Appeals says driver’s comparative fault barred recovery in truck wreck

By Kyle Roby, Attorney English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP Although the basic law of negligence is the same across the country - namely, that to be successful, the plaintiff must show duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages - there are some nuances of negligence law that are different in various states. Thus, the outcome of a particular case can vary considerably, depending upon the state in which the accident occurred. For instance, under the law of comparative fault, there can be wide variations in the outcome of a suit based on similar circumstances, depending upon the state where the suit is filed. The state of Tennessee follows what is called the "modified system of comparative fault." Beginning with the 1992 case of McIntyre v. Balentine, a plaintiff may recover damages in proportion to a defendant's percentage of fault in an accident, as long as the defendant's fault outweighed any fault by the plaintiff. In cases in which the jury finds the parties to be equally at fault (or finds the plaintiff to be more than 50 percent at fault), the plaintiff recovers nothing. Read More

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