270.781.6500

car accident

05.24.2017

ELPO wins major victory in Court of Appeals in car accident case

By Kyle Roby, Attorney and Partner English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP Would you consider an ATV – an all-terrain vehicle – a motor vehicle? Kentucky law and some insurance companies do not – and that’s what the case we recently won for a client concluded, to the client’s benefit. The client, Thomas Robertson, was driving an ATV on a public roadway in Metcalfe County. Stacy Morgan was driving a vehicle on the same road, and as she attempted to pass Robertson, he turned left, and she collided with his ATV. Both were injured in the accident. Robertson did not have insurance, but Morgan did. Robertson, driving the ATV, sought Basic Reparations Benefits (BRBs) from the insurance company that insured Morgan’s vehicle. Under the terms of Morgan’s insurance, Robertson was considered to be a pedestrian, and pedestrians are entitled to basic reparations benefits. Read More

04.06.2017

Motorcycle accident kills bike owner, injures woman and leads to lawsuit

As one might expect, a large number of motor vehicle and motorcycle accident cases focus on the issues of who was at fault and how much money it will take to fully compensate the injured person (or deceased person's family) for the damages suffered in the collision. Sometimes, however, the issue is not who is at fault but instead whether a particular insurance company is obligated to pay a claim arising from the accident. Such was the case in a recent declaratory judgment action that was reviewed by the Tennessee appellate court. Read More

03.22.2017

Son who moved out of Kentucky parents’ home not a “resident relative” for underinsured motorist insurance purposes

Many people think of "car insurance" as something you either have or don't have. When a claim arises, these folks can be very surprised to learn that there are a multitude of issues outside of parties simply being insured or uninsured. This is because, at its essence, an insurance policy is a contract that has many different terms, provisions, and exclusions. So it is very important to understand exactly what is - and is not - covered under one's policy. As a recent case illustrates, it is also important to discuss your policy with your insurance agent regularly, especially if your household situation changes. Read More

11.15.2016

Court finds that parents of deceased plaintiff could substitute in Tennessee motor vehicle collision case

Some of the first concepts that law students are taught involve identifying the potential parties to a lawsuit and the appropriate court to file their claim. For instance, in order to seek relief in a court of law, a potential plaintiff must have standing. This means that the party has a sufficient connection to the issue to support that person's participation in the legal proceedings at issue. It's a simple enough idea. But what happens when a plaintiff dies before the matter is resolved? Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 25.01 states that, unless the claim is extinguished by the plaintiff's death, another interested party (such as the successor or representative of the plaintiff) may file a motion to be substituted as the plaintiff. A Tennessee appellate court recently had an occasion to review a trial court's decision regarding this issue in a motor vehicle collision case. Read More

12.22.2015

Tennessee court rules that Texas driver was entitled to coverage under his employer’s uninsured motorist policy

By Kyle Roby, Attorney English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP Many people assume that making a claim on an uninsured motorist insurance policy is fairly straightforward. After all, the other driver either had insurance or didn't have insurance, right? Unfortunately, uninsured motorist cases can be just as contentious and adversarial as lawsuits that are litigated between injured parties and defendants who have insurance. Not only is the amount to which the injured party is entitled a common source of dispute, but also it is not unusual for there to be a disagreement about whether the uninsured motorist policy covered the accident in question. Read More

11.16.2015

Tennessee car crash case implicates state in construction of intersection

By Kyle Roby, Attorney English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP At one time, a person injured by the negligence of a governmental entity was without a remedy, due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Basically a carryover from the English common law under which "the King could do no wrong," the doctrine precluded a would-be plaintiff from asserting what might otherwise have been a meritorious claim against a state or local government. Now, however, most governmental entities have consented to be sued through various tort claims acts. Such acts set forth the procedure for filing a claim, the statute of limitations, and the maximum damages that may be sought. It is important to note that, since such actions are purely statutory in nature, an injured person must strictly comply with all procedural requirements, or else his or her suit will likely be dismissed. Even when all requirements are met, it is ultimately up to the courts to determine whether a particular claim is valid. Read More

08.18.2015

“Modified Comparative Fault” Rule Bars Recovery in Tennessee Car Crash

Car accidents fall under an area of tort law known as "negligence." To make out a successful case, a plaintiff must prove four things:  1) the defendant owed him or her a duty of care, 2) the defendant breached that duty, 3) the plaintiff sustained actual damages, and 4) the plaintiff's damages were caused by the defendant's breach of duty. It seems simple enough, right? Unfortunately, many cases are not as simple as they initially seem. Issues such as comparative fault - an allegation by the defendant that the plaintiff is responsible for some part of the accident - can quickly complicate matters. The resolution of such issues often depends upon the law of the state in which the wreck occurred. This Tennessee car crash case is an example. Kentucky is one of about a dozen states that follow the "pure comparative fault" doctrine, under which a plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to his or her fault, but he or she is still allowed to recover against the defendant for the defendant's percentage of fault. In Tennessee, however, the rule is one of "modified comparative fault," with the plaintiff only being allowed to recover if his or her fault is less than 50%. If the plaintiff is found to be 49% at fault, he or she can recover 51% of his or her total damages, but there is no recovery at all if the parties are determined to bear equal fault. Read More

06.10.2015

Tennessee Appellate Court Upholds Verdict Against Uninsured Motorist Carrier in Car Accident Case

Most drivers carry at least some uninsured/underinsured motorist protection, but many do not understand the difficulties that may arise when it comes time to make a claim under this coverage. Unfortunately, simply having an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist does not automatically result in a payout by the insurance company, even when the insured's injuries are catastrophic or fatal. Instead, the insured person (or his or her family, in the event of a wrongful death), must negotiate a settlement with the insurance company or proceed to trial against the uninsured person and obtain a verdict. Even then, the insurance company has a right to appeal the verdict on the grounds that it was improper or excessive. This is exactly what happened in the recent Tennessee case of Monypeny v. Kheiv. Read More

11.21.2014

What proof is required in a bad faith claim against an insurance company?

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

09.19.2014

ELPO wins settlement for plaintiff in truck case

Our firm often represents plaintiffs injured in car, truck or tractor-trailer accidents. The injuries from these accidents can be catastrophic or event fatal. The damage to vehicles is often very costly. Almost everyone has to deal with the results of a traffic wreck at some point. How you handle it can determine much about your financial future. If you accept the first settlement offered by an insurance company, you're giving up your rights to examine the case, and your rights to fight for payment for the health care you'll receive and compensation for lost wages and other issues that may result from the accident. In fact, taking some time to let an attorney examine your case gives you time, too, to see how extensive recovery will be from your accident and helps you better negotiate for compensation for the physical problems you may experience down the road that aren't evident initially. Read More