270.781.6500

car wreck

01.13.2017

Tennessee Court of Appeals affirms dismissal of plaintiff’s motor vehicle accident case

Since there are so many variables and complexities involved in a motor vehicle accident case, it is always best for those who are injured in car crashes to consult with an attorney as early in the process as possible. Issues such as the statute of limitations, notice requirements, and other matters concerning timeliness must be dealt with promptly. The courts do not favor those who don't exercise their rights to sue in a timely manner. Recently, a Tennessee appellate court was called upon to decide whether an insurance company (which stood in for its insured, to which it had paid damages arising from a motor vehicle accident) had forfeited its right to recover from the responsible party because it failed to file their case after the defendant appealed a verdict for the plaintiff to circuit court. Read More

10.06.2016

Kentucky Court says executrix can’t collect both uninsured motorist and liability insurance coverage

When a person is involved in a motor vehicle accident, he or she typically expects there to be a dispute about who was at fault or how much the claim is worth. What most people do not expect, however, is that a "routine" car accident case can quickly escalate into a battle with one's own insurance company. A recent case decided by Kentucky's intermediate court of appeals illustrates the difficulties that can arise when an insured's expectations as to what is provided under a policy do not line up with the language of the actual document. The case came down to what type of insurance would be paying the claim: uninsured motorist or liability insurance coverage. Read More

05.03.2016

Defendant in Tennessee car accident case had the right to introduce photographs

By Kyle Roby, Attorney English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP Car accidents, truck wrecks, and other motor vehicle crashes fall under the general law of negligence. In order to prove a negligence case, a plaintiff has to prove four separate elements:  duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Each element must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, which is when the jury finds that the plaintiff's version of the facts is more likely true than not. It does not require the injured person to prove beyond a reasonable doubt these elements, as in the criminal justice system, but rather only that it is more likely than not that there was a breach in a duty owed to the injured person that caused damages. Once the plaintiff has presented his or her case at trial, and the judge has determined that he or she has made a prima facie case of negligence, the defendant has the right to offer evidence that contradicts the plaintiff's version of the facts or impeaches the plaintiff's testimony. The jury is the ultimate trier of fact, taxed with the duty of deciding which witness to believe when the testimony is conflicting. Read More

03.31.2016

Underinsured motorist case filed in wrong state court

One of the first things that future attorneys learn in law school is that a court must have jurisdiction before it can act in a particular case. This power of the court to act is two-fold. The court must have both personal jurisdiction (power over the persons or corporations named in the suit), and it must have subject matter jurisdiction (authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter). If either is missing, the court lacks the power to adjudicate the matter and must dismiss the case. In the recent unpublished opinion of Taylor v. Bristol West Insurance Company, the Jefferson Circuit Court was called upon to decide whether a Kentucky trial court had jurisdiction over an insurance company that issued a motor vehicle insurance policy to an Indiana resident who was later involved in a car accident in Jefferson County, Kentucky. 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

12.17.2015

Tennessee Court of Appeals says driver’s comparative fault barred recovery in truck wreck

By Kyle Roby, Attorney English, Lucas, Priest and Owsley, LLP Although the basic law of negligence is the same across the country - namely, that to be successful, the plaintiff must show duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages - there are some nuances of negligence law that are different in various states. Thus, the outcome of a particular case can vary considerably, depending upon the state in which the accident occurred. For instance, under the law of comparative fault, there can be wide variations in the outcome of a suit based on similar circumstances, depending upon the state where the suit is filed. The state of Tennessee follows what is called the "modified system of comparative fault." Beginning with the 1992 case of McIntyre v. Balentine, a plaintiff may recover damages in proportion to a defendant's percentage of fault in an accident, as long as the defendant's fault outweighed any fault by the plaintiff. In cases in which the jury finds the parties to be equally at fault (or finds the plaintiff to be more than 50 percent at fault), the plaintiff recovers nothing. Read More

08.18.2015

“Modified Comparative Fault” Rule Bars Recovery in Tennessee Car Crash

Car accidents fall under an area of tort law known as "negligence." To make out a successful case, a plaintiff must prove four things:  1) the defendant owed him or her a duty of care, 2) the defendant breached that duty, 3) the plaintiff sustained actual damages, and 4) the plaintiff's damages were caused by the defendant's breach of duty. It seems simple enough, right? Unfortunately, many cases are not as simple as they initially seem. Issues such as comparative fault - an allegation by the defendant that the plaintiff is responsible for some part of the accident - can quickly complicate matters. The resolution of such issues often depends upon the law of the state in which the wreck occurred. This Tennessee car crash case is an example. Kentucky is one of about a dozen states that follow the "pure comparative fault" doctrine, under which a plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to his or her fault, but he or she is still allowed to recover against the defendant for the defendant's percentage of fault. In Tennessee, however, the rule is one of "modified comparative fault," with the plaintiff only being allowed to recover if his or her fault is less than 50%. If the plaintiff is found to be 49% at fault, he or she can recover 51% of his or her total damages, but there is no recovery at all if the parties are determined to bear equal fault. 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

02.09.2015

Shelby County Car Accident Case brings $1 million verdict for plaintiff

In Barnes v. Saulsberry, a man sued a taxi cab driver and the owner of the taxi cab following an accident on the side of the highway. The man was standing on the shoulder of a Tennessee highway waiting for emergency personnel to arrive following a traffic collision. While the man was outside his vehicle, a taxi cab struck a parked automobile. The parked vehicle collided with the man’s car, which then hit the man. As a result, the man allegedly sustained permanent and disabling harm. About one year after the automobile accident, the injured man filed a negligence lawsuit against the taxi cab driver and its owner in Shelby County, Tennessee. According to the man, the defendants caused him to suffer numerous broken bones, ongoing pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and more. Following a jury trial, the man received a damages award of $1 million. After unsuccessfully seeking a new trial, the defendants filed an appeal with the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville. 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