270.781.6500

insurance

04.26.2016

Uninsured motorist insurance carrier sues in accident case

Uninsured motorist insurance coverage can help pay for property damage, medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering in the event that an insured is involved in an accident with an uninsured (or underinsured) driver.  An uninsured driver is just what you would think it means – a driver that does not have insurance. Underinsured driver means the at fault driver has insurance, but they do not have enough insurance to cover your damages such as medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. If an insurance company makes payments to its insured under a uninsured motorist policy, the insurance company has a right to file suit against the uninsured driver in order to assert its subrogation rights. In such cases, the insurance company essentially stands in the shoes of the insured and is held to the same procedural rules as the insured if he or she filed the lawsuit. Read More

03.15.2016

Commercial insurance company not obligated to pay family of child injured in accident

By Kyle Roby, Attorney and Partner English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP The reported cases decided by the appellate courts sometimes come in batches of cases involving similar issues. Since a criminal case questioning the applicability of the death penalty, for example, involves an entirely different set of issues, research, and analysis than does a tort case arguing about liability in a medical malpractice lawsuit, there is judicial economy when the courts decide similar cases during the same time period. Lately, it seems the courts have been faced with a number of cases involving whether or not a given situation is covered under a particular insurance policy. In the recent case of Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Holland, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville was called upon to decide whether a commercial general liability insurance policy provided coverage in an accident in which a child was injured by the gate of a trailer that an insured used to transport lawn care equipment. 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

12.22.2015

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

06.16.2015

Kentucky Statute of Limitations for Car Accident Determined by Date of Issuance of Replacement Check, Not Date of Original Check That Was Lost – Beaumont v. Zeru

Most civil lawsuits involving personal injury are subject to a statute of limitations, or time limit, after which a party has no legal recourse unless a special exception applies. When this happens, it is often said that the statute of limitations has been "tolled." Both the length of the limitations period and the possibility of tolling can vary widely, depending upon the state in which the accident occurred. The recent case of Beaumont v. Zeru discussed the extent to which an insurance company's payment of certain benefits affects the time period during which an injured motorist may file suit against the responsible party. 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

04.14.2015

8 steps to take if you’re involved in a car wreck

Car wrecks occur every day by the thousands. Sometimes they’re slight fender-benders, but other times these accidents cause injuries that can impact the quality of life of those involved. Having a plan in place if you’re involved in a car wreck can help you if you are not severely injured. Talking through your plan with your family can prepare you and is an excellent step to take. We’ve outlined eight steps we would tell any clients to take if they are involved in an accident. If anyone in your vehicle is injured and needs immediate medical attention, call 911 as soon as you can. It’s important to get an ambulance headed your way as soon as possible, particularly if you are in a rural area. This can take time, as can the ambulance ride to a medical center, and time is your greatest enemy when you’re injured. If you or someone in your vehicle is severely injured, the rest of this list doesn’t matter. Nothing is more important than getting them the help they need to survive and recover. 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

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

02.26.2015

Kentucky Court of Appeals says helmet is not integral part of motorcycle in accident dispute

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled in an unpublished opinion that a helmet is not an integral part of a motorcycle for purposes of uninsured motorist benefits. This issue was decided on in the case of Stallard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. The case involved a motorcycle owner who was injured in an accident while riding with a group of other bikers. The man was riding in the center of a group of about two dozen motorcyclists when the group of riders suddenly slowed. As the man attempted to avoid an accident with another motorcycle, he sustained serious injuries when another motorcyclist’s unsecured helmet bounced into his tire. When the motorcycle accident occurred, the motorcyclist carried uninsured motor vehicle (UM) insurance. Since the injured man was not hit by another vehicle, however, the motorcyclist’s insurer denied his insurance benefits claim. After that, the injured rider filed a lawsuit against his insurance carrier in Jefferson County Circuit Court. In response, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it was not required to provide benefits under the terms of the policy because the motorcyclist was not physically struck by another vehicle, nor was he injured by an integral part of another vehicle. The hurt rider countered that he should be compensated by his UM insurer because a motorcycle helmet is an integral part of a motorcycle. The trial court sided with the insurance company and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance carrier. Read More