insurance

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has found that Virginia law applied in an uninsured motorist (UIM) coverage dispute arising out of a Kentucky tractor-trailer crash. In an unpublished opinion, a Virginia truck driver sued the insurance carrier for another motorist who struck his big rig head-on. The tractor-trailer wreck occurred on Interstate 65 in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in 2009. At the time of the collision, the other motorist was allegedly intoxicated and traveling in the wrong direction on the freeway. Following the accident, the truck driver settled with the at-fault driver’s liability insurer for the full policy limits of $25,000. After that, the semi-truck driver’s motor vehicle insurer waived its subrogation rights against the other driver.  The trucker then sought $25,000 in UIM benefits from his own auto insurer. The truck driver’s UIM insurer denied his claim because the at-fault driver was not an underinsured motorist according to the definition included in his insurance policy. In addition, the company claimed that Virginia law allowed it to offset the $25,000 payment the truck driver received from the other driver’s insurer against his potential UIM benefits. Because of this, the trucker’s insurer claimed that he was not entitled to receive additional payment as a result of his UIM coverage. Read More

The Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act allows a policyholder to recover damages for an auto insurer’s denial of basic reparation benefits following a Kentucky car crash. In Risner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. , a man sued his insurance company for payment of benefits after he was apparently injured in a Lexington, Kentucky motor vehicle collision. Following the traffic accident, the man was treated by a local chiropractor. The injured man then sought reimbursement for his associated medical expenses from his auto insurer. About six months later, the insurance company notified the policyholder that it was denying coverage for certain medical bills he incurred as a result of the crash. In Kentucky, basic reparation benefits are typically used to pay the medical bills and certain other expenses of an individual who was hurt in a car accident, regardless of fault. After the man’s auto insurer discontinued his no-fault benefits, the injured man filed a lawsuit against the company in Rowan County Circuit Court. According to the man’s complaint, the motor vehicle insurer violated the Kentucky Motor Vehicles Reparations Act and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. In addition, the hurt man accused his insurance company of negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and numerous other claims. As a result, the policyholder asked the court to award him both compensatory and punitive damages. In general, punitive damages are only appropriate when a court seeks to punish a party and deter similar conduct in the future. Read More

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision in favor of an automobile insurer in a motorcycle wreck case. In Black v. Nationwide General Insurance Co., a woman was hurt in a crash while riding as a passenger on her husband’s motorcycle in 2010. The same motorcycle was apparently damaged in a 2008 collision and placed in storage. Between 2008 and 2010, the couple allowed both the registration and insurance on the vehicle to lapse. About two weeks before the woman was hurt, her husband repaired the motorcycle, but he did not register it or resume insurance coverage. On the date of the accident, the couple reportedly rode the motorcycle around the block. While doing so, the motorcycle collided with another vehicle that allegedly drove into the path of the couple. Following the crash, the woman was treated for spinal cord injuries. At the time of the motorcycle accident, the couple carried an automobile insurance policy on two other passenger vehicles. The policy included both underinsured motorist and personal injury protection coverage. Nearly two years after the motorcycle crash, the woman filed a lawsuit against her automobile insurer, seeking to collect compensation for her damages in excess of those paid by the at-fault motorist’s insurance company. The woman’s insurer countered that the couple’s insurance policy did not cover the motorcycle. In addition, the insurer claimed the clear and unambiguous terms of the auto policy excluded coverage for injuries sustained while using any vehicle owned by or available for the regular use of the couple that was not insured by the company. Next, the insurance company filed a motion for summary judgment with the Jefferson Circuit Court. A motion for summary judgment is filed when there is no material issue of fact in dispute, and the moving party believes it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Normally, a court must consider such a motion in the light that is most favorable to the non-moving party. After reviewing the facts of the case, the Circuit Court granted the insurer’s motion and dismissed the woman’s lawsuit. In response, she filed an appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More

A 2011 accident involving a tree-trimming crew resulted in the death of one worker and injuries to another. The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently ruled on a lawsuit concerning the accident after it was appealed from Warren County Circuit Court in Bowling Green, Kentucky. You can read the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruling in the case here: http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2013-CA-000078.pdf The accident involved three men: James Coleman, Davison Crocker, and Dale Cherry, all of whom were employed by A&G Tree Service, Inc., which is located in Leitchfield, Kentucky. In August 2011, they were sent to a job site in Tennessee, and traveled together to the job site in a company vehicle. On the way back, an accident occurred that took the life of Cherry and injured Crocker. The employment handbook for A&G indicates that their employees are considered to be at work once they arrive at the site where their work is to occur. The workers may use company vehicles for their convenience and carpooling is permitted. After the accident, Crocker received workers' compensation benefits, and Cherry's estate received workers' compensation death benefits. Crocker sued Coleman and his personal insurance carrier, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, arguing that Coleman's negligent driving had caused the accident. Progressive argued that workers' compensation should be the sole source of benefits for Coleman and Cherry's estate, but Crocker argued that the men were not on the clock, so tort relief was also possible. The Warren County Circuit Court did not agree. Kentucky law says that the either an employee may recover workers' compensation benefits, if in fact their injury occurred while the employee was on the job, or the worker may recover tort damages if the employee was not on the clock at the time of the injury or damages, but the person may not recover both. Read More

Earlier this year, the Kentucky Court of Appeals made a significant ruling that's largely viewed as favorable to plaintiff's attorneys. The court ruled that the statute of limitations begins on an Underinsured Motorists claim when the insurance company turns down the insurance claim, rather than from the date of the accident or the date of the last Personal Injury Payment (PIP) was made. Underinsured Motorists provisions are included in most insurance policies. The provisions allow motorists to cover the costs of property damage, physical injuries, rehabilitation and other issues caused by another driver who is underinsured or does not have enough insurance to compensate someone for their injuries and damages. Those involved in such an accident file a claim with their own insurance company seeking compensation. The provisions vary by company and by policy, and some accident victims seek the assistance of an attorney to file such a claim. The recent Kentucky Court of Appeals case cited here was Amberee N. Hensley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 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

Insurance policies can be difficult for a layperson to interpret. There are a number of additional principles that govern insurance contracts, which insurers know, but their insured do not always understand. An experienced personal injury attorney can help make sure that you are not tripped up in a personal injury settlement with an insurer due to confusing policy terms or principles of which you may not be aware. In a recent case, the Kentucky Supreme Court reviewed an appellate court's opinion agreeing with the insurance company and against an injured person. In the case, the lower court's grant of summary judgment dismissed a man's claim for underinsured motorist coverage on the grounds that the underinsured motorist coverage was the result of a mutual mistake in making the insurance contract. Mutual mistake is a defense that an insurer may raise to show there is no coverage for an accident. The man argued that the "mutual mistake" defense wasn't available because the insurer failed to present clear and convincing evidence proving it mistakenly issued underinsured motorist coverage. He also argued that the insurer hadn't plead mutual mistake with particularity and therefore it waived the defense. He also claimed the trial court should have permitted him to amend his complaint to include statutory bad faith. Read More