Kentucky Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

In March of 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky had to decide a Louisville car accident case that involved UIM benefits after the lower court had denied the UIM benefits to the injured party. (See Whisenant v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2013 WL 842586 (W.D. Ky. 2013)). The plaintiff in this Louisville UIM car accident case was injured in a Louisville car accident. The plaintiff brought breach of contract and bad faith claims and the lower court, and not this appellate court, dismissed the Louisville UIM car accident personal injury case.

The Louisville UIM car accident occurred on March 26, 2009 when the at fault party crossed the double yellow lines and struck plaintiff’s car. The plaintiff at the time of the Louisville car accident had underinsured motorist benefits (UIM) to protect herself when she was in a car accident with someone who is found at fault but had insufficient insurance to fully compensate her for her injuries. On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff’s Louisville UIM car accident lawyer demanded the UIM benefits in the amount of $75,000. The defendant insurer denied the claim stating that the plaintiff had failed to make the claim within the contractual limitations set forth in her policy. In her policy it states that a claim for UIM benefits must be made within two years from the date of the accident from the last basic or added reparation payment made, whichever occurs later. The accident occurred on March 26,m 2009 and the last payment was made on January 26, 2010. Thus the demand for payment on March 15, 2012 is outside the two year period.

Continue reading "Louisville UIM Car Accident Case" »

In March of 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky decided a case that involved Kentucky PIP and a car accident. (See Hill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2013 WL 1332611 (E.D. Ky. 2013)). In this Kentucky car accident PIP case, the plaintiff was involved in a Kentucky car accident in November of 2007. State Farm insured both parties. As part of the policy for the Kentucky car accident plaintiff, it had a time limit in which to bring a Kentucky car accident lawsuit.

This was a very interesting case in that it was trifurcated. Trifurcating a case does not happen very often. The three distinct actions consisted of 1) a declaratory judgment action concerning the application of the contractual limitation period contained in the underinsured motorist policy, 2) an underinsured motorist policy claim (UIM claim), and 3) a bad faith claim. Id.

After the Kentucky car accident, the plaintiff opened a bodily injury claim against the wrongful party and opened a PIP claim under her own policy. Plaintiff received payments for his PIP policy through January 30, 2008. The plaintiff through her Kentucky car accident personal injury lawyer filed a civil suit on August 31, 2009. The defendant insurance company was given a 90 day extension to put in an Answer. And then they were given another 90 day extension. The plaintiff during this time put in his demand through his Kentucky car accident personal injury lawyer for the full amount of the liability policy and the full amount of the UIM coverage. On March 3, 2010, the wrongful party tendered their full amount but the UIM denied their monies. The UIM in this Kentucky car accident case denied their monies because of the expiration of the limitations period that ended on January 30, 2010. Two days later plaintiff’s Kentucky car accident PIP lawyer added the UIM carrier as a party because of the denial of UIM benefits. Id.

Continue reading "Kentucky Car Accident PIP Case" »

In April of 2013, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky held that the insurer was required to utilize the insured’s basic reparations benefits coverage prior to Med Pay coverage. (See Cole v. Fagin, 2013 WL 1694758 (Ky. App 2013)). In this case the plaintiff carried a car accident policy with the defendant for among other things, it included a $5,000 in Med Pay and $10,000 in Basic Reparations Benefits (BRB). On July 1, 2009, the plaintiff was injured in a Kentucky car accident. The defendant insurance company mailed the injured plaintiff a BRB application on July 2, 2009. The defendant insurance company also mailed her the PIP forms.

Shortly thereafter, the defendant insurance company sent the plaintiff a letter informing her that the Med Pay would be used first because there was a one year statute on coverage for that, and then the PIP would be used because there was a two year statute on that coverage. The plaintiff eventually had both claims opened. The Kentucky car accident insurance coverage case racked up $3,976.57 worth of medical expenses from August 6, 2009 to October 22, 2009. The plaintiff’s Kentucky car accident personal injury lawyer finally filed the lawsuit on October 13, 2011. The Kentucky car accident personal injury lawyer alleged a contractual obligation and underinsured coverage and also that the defendant insurance company had only partially paid a claim that she had made with them for Med Pay and BRB benefits under the plaintiff’s insurance policy. Id.

Continue reading "Kentucky Car Accident Insurance Coverage Case" »

In April of 2013, the United States Court of Appeals of Kentucky heard a case that involved a Louisville car accident where the lower court had granted summary judgment to the defendant insurance company and now the plaintiff was appealing. (See Arguelles v. Nationwide Investment Services Corporation, 2013 WL 1384922 (Ky. App. 2013)). In this case, the plaintiff claims she was seriously injured and that the defendant insurance policy covered her. But the lower court, and this appellate court, did not agree with her. The plaintiff’s Louisville car accident lawyer could not make his case.

The plaintiff in this Louisville car accident serious injuries case was injured on September 29, 2009, in a car accident. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was driving a car that she owned and insured through a third-party insurer not party to this action. At the time of the Louisville car accident, the plaintiff lived with her parents and the car that struck her was underinsured. The plaintiff’s Louisville car accident lawyer settled with the at fault liability carrier for the policy limits. The plaintiff then filed for underinsured motorist benefits (UIM) which had issued a policy to plaintiff’s parents.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Serious Injuries Case" »

In April of 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky heard a case that involved a Louisville car accident where the issue was plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages. (See Zachery v. Shaw, 2013 WL 1636385 (W.D. Ky. 2013)). The Louisville car accident occurred on Interstate 65. Plaintiff alleges in this Louisville car accident case that the tractor trailer driven by the defendant crossed into her right of way and struck her. The car accident was severe and plaintiff’s car was pushed more than 100 feet until it ran off the road. Plaintiff is claiming injuries to her back, post traumatic stress, her car was totaled, he ability to work impaired, and she had difficulty sleeping and concentrating.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. “Under Kentucky law, punitive damages are available only if a defendant acted with oppression, fraud, malice, or gross negligence. KRS Section 411.184” (cites omitted). The level needed to satisfy the requirement of gross negligence is high. Not only do you have to show that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable are but that he did the action with a ‘wanton or reckless disregard for the lives, safety or property of others’. Id.

The Louisville Car Accident lawyer that plaintiff had hired had to show that the actions of the driver were truly gross negligence. If the driver of the tractor-trailer was just negligent then punitive damages would not be awarded, no matter how serious of an accident or how serious the injuries were.

Continue reading "Louisville Car Accident Case" »

In April of 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, heard a case involving a Kentucky minor personal injury settlement issue. (See Adkins v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., 2103 WL 1412331 (E.D. Ky. 2013)). At issue before the court was a motion to stay and a discovery order. For the following reasons, the objections were overruled and the motion denied.

The plaintiff in this Kentucky minor personal injury settlement case was involved in a Kentucky automobile accident on October 25, 2008. The minor was 17 years old at the time of the Kentucky automobile accident. But, the family did not hire a Kentucky minor personal injury settlement attorney. But, the defendant in the Kentucky automobile accident case did hire an attorney. The insurance adjuster knew this and spoke to the victim’s mother and offered to pay her $500 for her personal injury claim. The mother signed the settlement release. No court approval was sought or obtained for this settlement. Id.

After the victim turned 18 years old, she hired a Kentucky minor personal injury settlement attorney and filed a personal injury lawsuit and obtained a higher settlement for her injuries. Plaintiff brought this new lawsuit against the defendant in May of 2012 alleging violation of the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act and common-law bad faith for which she sought compensatory and punitive damages. Id.

Continue reading "Kentucky Minor Personal Injury Settlement Case" »

In March of 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky heard a case that involved a Kentucky ADA and ADEA discrimination case out of the Bowling Green Division. (See Bogle v. Franklin, 2013 WL 1310753 (W.D. Ky. 2013)). The Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal and partial judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted the motion for partial judgment on the pleadings for the following reasons.

In this Kentucky ADA and ADEA discrimination case, the plaintiff had worked for the defendant for about forty years. In early 2012, the plaintiff applied and interviewed for a new position but was not chosen and the job was given to another of defendant’s employees. The plaintiff hired a Kentucky ADA and ADEA discrimination lawyer and filed his discrimination lawsuit in November of 2012.

Continue reading "Kentucky Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Discrimination and Age Discrimination (ADEA)" »

In March of 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky heard a case that involved a Kentucky Motorcycle Accident where the issue was disability insurance benefits. (See Iles v. Colvin, 2013 WL 1314078 (E.D. Ky. 2013)).

The case was originally in front of an Administrative Law Judge “ALJ”. The ALJ had to determine disability. In doing so, he conducted a five step analysis. The burden of proof is on the claimant during the first four steps and then if he meets his burden, the final step transfers to the Secretary. The Kentucky motorcycle accident lawyer put forth a lot of evidence in this case but eventually for the following reasons the court denied plaintiff’s request for disability benefits.

Continue reading "Kentucky Motorcycle Accident Case" »

In April of 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky heard a case involving Kentucky ADA retaliation in Kentucky. (See Lehman v. St. Elizabeth Healthcare, 2013 WL 1345369 (E.D. Ky. 2013)). In this ADA retaliation case, the plaintiff was born in 1954 and began working for the defendant since 1976 in the security department. From 1985 to 2010 he was a security supervisor. He was terminated in 2010. Plaintiff in this Kentucky ADA retaliation case was diagnosed with diabetes in 2004 and in 2008 with severe sleep apnea. Kentucky ADA retaliation lawyer Andrew Alitowski has handled many cases just like this.

Plaintiff while at work was seen sleeping on the job. He admitted to such but thought it was because of his diabetes. Id. He was given a Level III discipline. Plaintiff thought to hire a Kentucky ADA retaliation case because he thought his problems stemmed from his diabetes. But, plaintiff was still fired because of him sleeping.

“The ADA prohibits discrimination by covered entities against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to terms and conditions of employment, including discharge.” (cites omitted). Proving an ADA case goes under the same type of back and forth as does a race or pregnancy discrimination case. The burden shifting is the same if it is a circumstantial case. And to survive a motion for summary judgment the plaintiff must adduce evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff’s disability was a “but for” cause of the adverse employment action. Id. A Kentucky ADA retaliation lawyer would have to review the entire case to see if it had merit or not.

Continue reading "Kentucky Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Retaliation Case" »

In April of 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky heard a case involving Kentucky FMLA retaliation in Kentucky. (See Curry v. Goodwill Industries of Kentucky, Inc., 2013 WL 1411132 (W.D. Ky. 2013)). The defendant in this Kentucky FMLA retaliation case filed its motion for summary judgment. As is the rule, the Court must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. Thought the non-moving party must present specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. In this case, the plaintiff was hired as a Manager for the defendant in 2008. She was a salaried employee.

Over a year later, plaintiff informed her supervisor that she need a hysterectomy. She told them this on July 22, 2009. On or about July 28, 2009, plaintiff alleges she was told by her manager that he was dissatisfied with the fact that she had to take time off. On July 31, 2009 plaintiff told the defendant that she needed FMLA leave. Id. Plaintiff testified that on August 12, 2009, she attempted to return the FMLA forms but was told to hold on to them. Finally, she faxed them in on August 17, 2009. On August 17, 2009, plaintiff was terminated for failing to follow Personnel Policy. Defendant claims in this Kentucky FMLA retaliation case that the defendant was terminated for falsifying her time records. Id. Thus, defendant argued that plaintiff was fired so they did not have to offer her FMLA leave.

Plaintiff hired a Kentucky FMLA retaliation lawyer and filed suit on June 17, 2011. The defendant then filed its motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading "Kentucky FMLA Retaliation Case" »

In August of 2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky heard a case involving a Louisville race discrimination plaintiff who was a fraternity brother with the Gamma Chapter at MSU. (See Jackson v. Murray State University, 2012 WL 3644839 (W.D. Ky. 2012)). The plaintiff while at a fraternity party was forcibly removed from the party and sued claiming that the fraternity violated his constitutional civil rights. Id. He is an African American. At the party he claims he was accosted and then thrown out and that racial slurs were said to him. He walked across town to his apartment. Plaintiff sued in this Louisville race discrimination case under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the Kentucky Civil Rights Act and other state law claims. His Louisville race discrimination lawyer alleged 5 counts in the complaint.

The court for the following reasons threw out his entire case. As to the 1981 action, the plaintiff claimed he entered into a contractual arraignment when he paid the three-dollar cover charge to gain access to the party. Under a 1981 action, racial discrimination is a necessary element of the claim. In this Louisville race discrimination case, the plaintiff was thrown out of the party because he lacked a wristband, not because he was an African American. Next, the bigoted remarks that were yelled by the crowd were made after Plaintiff was ejected from the party and his contract canceled. Id. Plaintiff’s Louisville race discrimination lawyer had a very hard case to make.

Continue reading "Louisville Race Discrimination Case" »

In January of 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky heard a case involving race discrimination in Kentucky. (See Smith v. Nor-Com, Inc., 2013 WL 211041 (E.D. Ky. 2013)). The defendant in this Kentucky race discrimination case filed a motion to dismiss and the court for the following reasons granted in part and denied it in part.

Plaintiff began working for the defendant in April of 2010. Id. She was hired to work furniture sales and was terminated on December 21, 2010. Plaintiff was recruited and was told she’d be trained. Her goal was to sell to the Air Force Base. When she began working for the defendant she was the first and only African –American employee.

The work did not turn out what plaintiff had expected. She felt the defendant was lying to clients on more than one occasion and she did not like this. She finally told her boss that she would not like and he apologized to her fro asking her to go against her beliefs. During her working there plaintiff asked that profanity not be used so much and the same for derogatory remarks. She did an internet search on “how to deal with racially-hostile work environment” that was seen by a coworker and then was shortly thereafter terminated. She then hired a Kentucky race discrimination lawyer.

Continue reading "Kentucky Race Discrimination Case" »