270.781.6500

law

11.23.2014

Which state’s laws apply in Uninsured Motorists provisions? Grange vs. Tennessee Farmers Mutual

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

11.19.2014

LaJuana Wilcher speaking at National Clean Water Law Seminar

LaJuana Wilcher speaking at National Clean Water Law Seminar Read More

11.17.2014

Kentucky Court of Appeals Overturns Summary Judgment In Which Spouse Rejected Uninsured Motorist Coverage

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

11.06.2014

Buzz English appointed to Kentucky Chamber Executive Committee

Buzz English appointed to Kentucky Chamber Executive Committee Read More

10.16.2014

Western District of Kentucky Says Man’s Medical Device Lawsuit is Not Preempted by Federal Law: Waltenburg v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.

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

09.16.2014

Kentucky Court of Appeals Overturns Summary Judgment in Car Accident Insurance Lawsuit

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court’s Order granting summary judgment in a car accident insurance dispute. In Embry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., two women were involved in a traffic wreck that resulted in injuries. Following the accident, one of the drivers filed a claim for medical and other damages from her automobile insurer. The insurer paid the claim and proceeded to file a lawsuit to recover the money it paid to its insured from the other driver in Jefferson Circuit Court. According to the insurer, the defendant’s negligent actions caused the car crash and all resulting damage. Although the defendant repeatedly denied responsibility for the collision, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment with the circuit court. A motion for summary judgment asks a court to rule in favor of one party to a lawsuit without proceeding to trial because no genuine issues of material fact exists for a jury to decide. Normally, a court is required to consider all of the evidence offered prior to the filing of such a motion in favor of the non-moving party. In its motion, the insurer claimed the defendant caused the crash and asserted that the amount of damages paid to its insured was reasonable. The defendant opposed the insurer’s motion by stating her alleged liability was unclear and the financial compensation sought by the insurer was excessive based upon the severity of the wreck. In addition, the defendant argued that her answers to the insurer’s complaint demonstrated that the facts of the case were disputed. The circuit court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the company. After the Jefferson Circuit Court denied the defendant’s motion, she filed an appeal with the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Read More

08.28.2014

Negligence Per Se in Kentucky

A case involving negligence per se, as opposed to ordinary negligence, occurs when a defendant violates a law or regulation and that violation causes an injury. In Kentucky, the plaintiff in a negligence per se case must be a member of a class of people that a regulation is designed to protect from injury. The violation of the law or regulation must have caused the plaintiff’s injury. The applicable regulation or law defines the relevant standard of care in a negligence per se case. In a 2012 case, the plaintiff invoked negligence per se in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to stay on his side of the highway or give her half of the highway, as a statute required, and therefore he was negligent per se. The case arose when the plaintiff's car and the defendant's truck crashed. The truck crossed the center line near a curve in the highway. The plaintiff swerved to avoid the truck and was injured when she hit a guardrail. The guardrail was next to a drop into a ravine. The plaintiff hurt her back, neck, and rotator cuff. Read More

08.18.2014

Aaron Smith speaks at KACo Leadership conference

Aaron Smith speaks at KACo Leadership conference Read More

07.09.2014

Cravens Priest speaks at employment law seminar

Cravens Priest speaks at employment law seminar Read More

07.07.2014

Attorneys speak at Kentucky Stormwater Association conference

Attorneys speak at Kentucky Stormwater Association conference Read More