People who must rely on PIP benefits available under a policy of uninsured motorist coverage following a Kentucky hit and run accident are often surprised at how contentious the process of obtaining fair compensation can be.
It might seem that the insured person and the insurance company are "on the same side," especially if the claimant has been faithfully paying his or her premiums for many years. The truth is that an insurance company is still an insurance company. It does not matter whether a claim is paid out under a UM/UIM policy or a liability policy; the company will still do everything it can to limit the amount paid out. Read More
In a recent Kentucky premises liability case, a store in which a customer tripped and fell on a pallet underneath a container of pumpkins insisted that the customer's fall was his own fault. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to the store.
Fortunately for the customer, the appellate court understood that the question was not as simple as the store made it out to be. Yes, the large box of pumpkins was clearly visible - but the wooden pallet beneath it was not necessarily noticeable to the customer under the circumstances.
Facts of the Case
In a recent unpublished Kentucky Court of Appeals case, the plaintiff was a man who tripped and fell while shopping for groceries at a store in Lexington. At the time of his fall, the man was carrying a handheld shopping basket that obscured his view of the corner of the pallet upon which he tripped. The accident caused extensive injuries to the plaintiff's shoulder and knees, causing him to undergo multiple surgeries. He filed a premises liability lawsuit against the store, alleging that his injuries were a direct and proximate result of the store's negligence and failure to keep the premises safe for business invitees. He sought to recover compensation for his medical costs, his lost earnings (past and future), and his pain and suffering.
The Fayette County Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's personal injury action. Read More
When a person is injured due to the negligence of another party, the injured person is entitled to pursue fair compensation for his or her injuries. In determining the amount due to a Tennessee car accident claimant, the court may consider the victim's past and future medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, loss of ability to enjoy life, permanent impairment, and other factors.
If the case is tried to a jury, the jury members make this determination. If the trial court judge hears the case without a jury, he or she makes the determination.
Either way, if one party or the other is aggrieved by the amount of damages awarded by the trial court, there is the possibility of having an appellate court review the award. Read More
Kentucky is a "no fault" insurance state. While this does not mean that a person hurt by another person's negligence can never seek compensation following a motor vehicle accident, it does provide that certain minimum benefits must be available to those who purchase automobile insurance, without regard to fault.
The idea is that injured individuals who suffer only minor injuries will have their medical expenses paid through their own personal injury protection (PIP) or basic reparations benefits (BRB), thus discouraging lawsuits. Read More
It is not usual for a company car to be used for purposes that go beyond official work for the employer's business. But what if the employee doesn't work for the company any longer, but still has the vehicle? Who is responsible if the former employee gets into an accident in that vehicle? Is the business obligated to provide liability insurance coverage?
In a recent case, a dispute arose as to whether the vehicle owner's insurance company owed liability coverage for an accident that occurred when the automobile was being used by a former employee for non-business purposes. Read More
