Issue  2003/11 - May 11, 2003    

 Table of Contents
 What's New?
  • Many, many thanks to Scott Byrd of Louisville for supplying the criminal law summaries of the published opinions from the Supreme Court.
  • Law Firms on the Web
  • Got a question from a local lawyer.  He attended an elderlaw course, and two techniques were mentioned but no forms provided.  Therefore, does anybody out there have a sample form for - 

    • Qualified personal residence trust.

    • Private annuity.

    • If so, just email it to me at stevens@lawyer.com.  Let me know if it's ok to email to others, or post it as a form on the site with links to it (for those receiving the lawwire), and/or giving you a thanks for the assist.

  • June 2003 CLE Seminar
    Please mark your calendars now for the 2003 Seminar to be held on June 5-6, 2003 at the Louisville Hurstbourne Convention Center.


  Kentucky Court of Appeals  - PUBLISHED DECISIONS - rest of Aprils are here and in the last issue
Civil Cases
  • None
Criminal
2001-CA-000616.pdf
Size: 24 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2002-CA-000847.pdf
Size: 22 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
 Kentucky Court of Appeals - NOT TO BE PUBLISHED DECISIONS -  rest of April 2003

Civil 

2001-CA-000881.pdf
Size: 23 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Negligence, Workers Comp, Up the Ladder, Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel
This is an interesting case on how res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply from a workers comp case to a personal injury case flowing from the same incident.  Basically, employee was working for Ryder when hurt at Toyota.  In the Workers Comp case, it was ruled not a work-related injury.  However, in the BI case later, Toyota raised the Workers Comp defense of "up the ladder" and the circuit court granted sum. judgement.  Since Toyotal was not a party to the Workers Comp claim, res judicata and collateral estoppel (claims preclusion) not apply. Result - ALJ said no work related injury and dismissed claim; circuit judge ruled it was workers comp and dismssed the action.  Catch 22!
2002-CA-000601.pdf
Size: 19 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Affirmed commissioners sale of property - no abuse of discretion
2002-CA-000664.pdf
Size: 42 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Objections to mediator's report regarding substantial repair and sale of property.  Affirmed trial courts' findings of fact etc.
2002-CA-000708.pdf
Size: 21 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
Admissibility of evidence - videotaped surveillance of commercial property showing trespasser.
2002-CA-000741.pdf
Size: 19 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
Appeals. Delay damages pursuant to KRS 26A.300 and CR 76.20(9)(a).

 

2002-CA-000756.pdf
Size: 44 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
Contract interpretation - exclusive agency.
2002-CA-000763.pdf
Size: 24 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Interpretation of restrictions in deeds.
2002-CA-000794.pdf
Size: 36 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
Administrative law - pollution control - tax exemptions.
2002-CA-000842.pdf
Size: 27 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
Defamation - limited public figure exception and commonwealth's attorney.
2002-CA-000899.pdf
Size: 22 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Taxation - city ordinances - culverts and city improvements.
2002-CA-000933.pdf
Size: 27 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
Administrative law - real estate brokers license - denial.
2002-CA-001170.pdf
Size: 17 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Judgment - finality - amending to add costs after 10 days too late.
2002-CA-001283.pdf
Size: 25 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Employment law - work place harassment.
2002-CA-001351.pdf
Size: 41 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Service of process - dismissal for failure to serve under CR 4 - no exception for good faith failure to serve - dismissal for lack of prosecution affirmed.
2002-CA-001371.pdf
Size: 16 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
Appeals - not final and appealable (family law division of pension order did not contain final and appealable language and other issues remained pending). 

 

Workers Compensation
2002-CA-000023.pdf
Size: 20 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
 
2002-CA-000525.pdf
Size: 29 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-001262.pdf
Size: 29 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-001327.pdf
Size: 20 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
 
2002-CA-001517.pdf
Size: 26 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-001548.pdf
Size: 24 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-001815.pdf
Size: 45 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-002016.pdf
Size: 38 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 

 

Criminal
2002-CA-000578.pdf
Size: 31 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
1999-CA-000702.pdf
Size: 16 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
 
1999-CA-001781.pdf
Size: 32 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
1999-CA-003141.pdf
Size: 18 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2001-CA-001648.pdf
Size: 22 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2001-CA-001780.pdf
Size: 41 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2001-CA-001983.pdf
Size: 19 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2001-CA-002092.pdf
Size: 23 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2001-CA-002144.pdf
Size: 28 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2001-CA-002145.pdf
Size: 22 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2001-CA-002264.pdf
Size: 25 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2001-CA-002578.pdf
Size: 25 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
 
2001-CA-002590.pdf
Size: 24 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2001-CA-000616.pdf
Size: 24 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2002-CA-000093.pdf
Size: 19 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-000150.pdf
Size: 35 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-000202.pdf
Size: 22 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2002-CA-000220.pdf
Size: 21 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-000291.pdf
Size: 20 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2002-CA-000334.pdf
Size: 21 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-000340.pdf
Size: 26 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-000400.pdf
Size: 32 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
 
2002-CA-000423.pdf
Size: 20 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-000427.pdf
Size: 22 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
 
2002-CA-000456.pdf
Size: 21 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2002-CA-000561.pdf
Size: 37 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-000578.pdf
Size: 31 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2001-CA-000642.pdf
Size: 26 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-000847.pdf
Size: 22 kb
Date: 4/10/2003
 
2002-CA-000868.pdf
Size: 25 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-000919.pdf
Size: 30 kb
Date: 4/16/2003
 
2002-CA-000992.pdf
Size: 18 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-001058.pdf
Size: 25 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-001274.pdf
Size: 32 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-001423.pdf
Size: 34 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-001494.pdf
Size: 32 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
2002-CA-001517.pdf
Size: 26 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-001673.pdf
Size: 24 kb
Date: 4/3/2003
 
2002-CA-001678.pdf
Size: 22 kb
Date: 4/24/2003
 
 Cases In Context
  • Auto Liability Insurance - Primary-Excess-Escape Clauses
    • KRS 304.20-065 -replacement  vehicle coverage
      The insured's collision coverage, if any, will extend to a loaned vehicle if the insured's negligence causes damage to such vehicle and the insured's vehicle is out of use because of breakdown, repair or servicing AND if the loaned vehicle is provided by a person, firm or corporation engaged in the  business of selling, repairing or servicing motor vehicles.
    • KRS 190.033
      While insured is operating a dealer's vehicle (loaner etc), the dealer's property damage liability coverage is excess to the insured property damage coverage for the insured's own negligence.
    • Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Haddix, Ky. App., 927 S.W.2d 843 (1996)
      Where two insurance companies are contesting primary liability, and one policy contains a nonstandard escape clause while the other contains an excess clause, the escape clause prevails over the excess clause.

      Escape clause in dealership's garage policy prevailed over excess clause in driver's personal policy such that driver's personal insurer had primary obligation to defend and indemnify driver in suit arising from accident occurring while driver was operating temporary substitute vehicle rented from dealership.
    • Geico v. Globe Indemnity Ins. Co., Ky., 415 S.W.2d 581 (1967)
      Held full liability on claim within policy limits fell on permissive driver's insurer, relieving owner's insurer, where both policies contained "excess insurance" clauses but owner's policy in addition contained "escape clause" providing that policy would not cover person other than named insured and his employees if other valid and collectible insurance, either primary or excess, was available to such person.
    • Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Ky., 511 S.W.2d 671 (1974)
      Where both policies had the same type of "escape" clauses, then both the garage policy and the customer's policy would be liable jointly to the limits of the smaller coverage, and the insurer with the larger limits would pay the amount in excess of the smaller coverage up to its limits.
    • Royal Globe Ins.Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, Ky. App., 560 S.W.2d 22 (1977)
      Compulsory insurance laws are intended to protect public at large who might otherwise suffer from being injured by uninsured motor vehicles, and are not intended to protect other insurance companies; when controversy is between two insurers, liability for loss should be determined by terms and provisions of respective policies without regard to rights that injured third parties might assert under compulsory insurance law.

      Where injuries were caused by automobile temporarily furnished by automobile dealer to its customer and driven by another person with customer as passenger, and automobile dealer's liability policy contained "escape" clause and the customer's liability insurer policy contained an "excess" clause, then the customer's policy afforded primary coverage to driver for liability resulting from injuries caused by accident.  If both policies had contained "excess" clauses, then both would have applied pro-rata.
    • Rees v. USG & G, Ky. App., 715 S.W.2d 904 (1986)
      Escape clause in insurer's policy relieved insurer of coverage for tort liability of substitute vehicle involved in accident, but did not relieve insurer the garage of basic reparation benefits liability.
    • State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall, Ky., 165 S.W.2ds 838 (1942)
      Affirmed clause making liability coverage excess for insured driving non-owned vehicle.
    • State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Register, Ky. App., 583 S.W.2d 705 (1979)
      The court held that both "escape" clauses were mutually repugnant and, teach company would be required to bear one half of expense of settlement of claim.  Customer's policy provided no coverage to non-owned automobiles owned by persons engaged in automobile business, and the garage policy provided no coverage to garage customers who had available other insurance, whether primary, excess or contingent.
    • Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Veljkovic, Ky. App., 613 S.W.2d 426 (1980)
      Motor vehicle dealer's  liability policy's "escape" clause could not circumvent the minimum limits required by KRS 190.033 (which now provide $100/300/50).

 Courier-Journal Law-Related On-Line Stories -  May 6 -11, 2003

No Good Deed Goes Unnoticed
IRAQI LAWYER WHO AIDED POW IS HONORED
Associated Press
An Iraqi lawyer who helped U.S. troops rescue prisoner of war Jessica Lynch was honored Thursday by a state lawyers' group. The Delaware Bar
Association said the award granted to Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, 32, reflects the best quality of lawyers - helping defenseless people being  treated unfairly. 

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/1110/5-8-2003/20030508193003_28.html

Gee, Do You Think That Response Is Gonna' Work?
JUDGE REPRIMANDED FOR TEACHER COMMENTS
Associated Press
A judge who spurred outrage for saying he failed to see the harm in a
sexual encounter between a teacher and student has been reprimanded. Superior Court Judge Bruce A. Gaeta violated the canons of the bench by making statements expressing a bias during sentencing, the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct found in a ruling released Thursday. Gaeta will remain on the bench, the panel said, because although the remarks were inappropriate, they were isolated and not likely to be repeated.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/1110/5-8-2003/20030508220004_04.html

Jury Awards $51M in Accidental Shooting
The Recorder

An Oakland, Calif., jury, which awarded $50.9 million Wednesday to a 16-year-old boy, also decided gun maker Bryco Arms is at least one-third liable in the shooting that left the boy a quadriplegic. The award comes just as members of Congress are considering legislation that would limit liability in suits like this one.