This is an Advertisement

Articles Tagged with uninsured motorists

Published on:

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In the recent unpublished opinion of Taylor v. Bristol West Insurance Company, the Jefferson Circuit Court was called upon to decide whether a Kentucky trial court had jurisdiction over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.

Continue reading

Published on:

Regardless of the merits of a party’s complaint, it will never be heard unless the courts find that it was timely filed. Failure to comply with the statute of limitations isn’t just a small “technicality.” It is a deal breaker when it comes to negligence litigation. A recent underinsured motorist claim case in Kentucky highlighted the importance of hitting deadlines.

It can also be a mistake to file suit on the eve of the running of the statute of limitations. As the plaintiff in the case set out below discovered, waiting until shortly before the expiration of the limitations period can be very costly.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville has upheld a choice of law provision that was included in an auto insurance policy. In Williams v. Smith, a couple and their young child were injured in a Putnam County, Tennessee car wreck that was caused by another driver. The accident was a head-on collision. At the time of the accident, the couple was headed east in a vehicle they borrowed from a North Carolina couple. Although the vehicle was registered in North Carolina, the owners of the vehicle secured liability insurance in Missouri in order to cover their college-age daughter while she was away at school. The accident policy included a Missouri choice of law provision and included uninsured motorist coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. The policy did not include underinsured motorist coverage because it is not required under Missouri law.

The driver who caused the Tennessee car wreck carried the minimum liability limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per incident as required by Tennessee law. Following the crash, the hurt family sought additional damages from the company that insured the vehicle they borrowed in a Tennessee court. Although the accident occurred in Tennessee, the issue in the case surrounded whether North Carolina or Missouri law applied to the insurance dispute. Since North Carolina requires a driver to carry liability coverage of $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident, the at-fault motorist would be considered an uninsured motorist under North Carolina law. If, however, Missouri law controlled, the man was simply an underinsured motorist, and the family was not entitled to collect additional benefits.

Continue reading

Published on:

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled in an unpublished opinion that a helmet is not an integral part of a motorcycle for purposes of uninsured motorist benefits. This issue was decided on in the case of Stallard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. The case involved a motorcycle owner who was injured in an accident while riding with a group of other bikers. The man was riding in the center of a group of about two dozen motorcyclists when the group of riders suddenly slowed. As the man attempted to avoid an accident with another motorcycle, he sustained serious injuries when another motorcyclist’s unsecured helmet bounced into his tire.

When the motorcycle accident occurred, the motorcyclist carried uninsured motor vehicle (UM) insurance. Since the injured man was not hit by another vehicle, however, the motorcyclist’s insurer denied his insurance benefits claim. After that, the injured rider filed a lawsuit against his insurance carrier in Jefferson County Circuit Court.

In response, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it was not required to provide benefits under the terms of the policy because the motorcyclist was not physically struck by another vehicle, nor was he injured by an integral part of another vehicle. The hurt rider countered that he should be compensated by his UM insurer because a motorcycle helmet is an integral part of a motorcycle. The trial court sided with the insurance company and granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance carrier.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

2014-10-17 09.29.48Earlier 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.

Continue reading

Published on:

2014-10-17 11.08.20

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.

Continue reading

Published on:

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.

Continue reading