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
In Putnam v. Medtronic, Inc., an Indiana woman filed a medical product injury lawsuit asserting 15 state-law causes of action in Jefferson County Circuit Court against her Kentucky doctor, the manufacturer of a medical product, and the Kentucky hospital where she underwent spinal fusion surgery. According to the woman’s complaint, the physician used the medical product to treat her in an off-label manner that was not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In addition, she accused the manufacturer of the product of intentionally and illegally promoting it for off-label use. The woman claimed she suffered harm as a result of this unapproved use and asked the Circuit Court to award her both compensatory and punitive damages.
The manufacturer of the medical product immediately removed the woman’s case to the Western District of Kentucky in Louisville based on diversity of citizenship. The manufacturer also asserted that removal was appropriate because the case involved questions of federal law. In response, the woman filed a motion to remand the lawsuit back to state court.
In considering the woman’s motion, the U.S. District Court examined the two sources of federal jurisdiction alleged in the case. Diversity jurisdiction is proper when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties hail from different states. Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a lawsuit arises from the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or a treaty the nation is a party to. The U.S. District Court continued by stating the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party that seeks removal, and the case must be remanded if jurisdiction is not proper. Read More
