Mar. 28, 2014 Court of Appeals Minutes — RE: criminal procedure, confessions, breathalyzer vs. blood test request; coverage question for cleaning premises used for methamphetamine production

Court of AppealsTwo published decisions were announced by the Court of Appeals for Mar. 28, 2014 – Guinn v. Commonwealth (confession, search and seizure & breathalyzer);  Neighborhood Investments, LLC v. Kentucky Farm Bureau (breach of contract on insurance policy for decontamination expenses of house used for methamphetamine production).

No torts, insurance and procedure decisions other than the published coverage question in Neighborhood Investments v. KFBM above.

Two published decisions (294-310) from the Kentucky Court of Appeals for Mar. 28, 2014:

295.  Criminal Procedure. Search & seizure; confessions; breathalyzer test.
Guinn vs. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Webster County
Affirming trial court.

Guinn appeals denial of his motion to suppress and dismiss on the following grounds: (1) all information about and connecting him to the ATV was the result of an illegal search and should be suppressed; (2) his confession was the product of an improper custodial interrogation without Miranda 7warnings; and (3) the officer could not refuse his request for a breathalyzer test and insist on a blood test.

301.  Insurance.  Coverage for decontamination methamphetamine clean up.
Neighborhood Investments, LLC v. Kentucky Farm Bureau
Letcher County

MOORE, JUDGE: Neighborhood Investments, LLC (“Neighborhood”), leased a house located at 403 N. 42nd Street in Louisville to Kenneth McCormick. During the term of the lease, McCormick was arrested for manufacturing methamphetamine in the house. Also, it was determined that the byproducts of McCormick’s methamphetamine production had contaminated the house and rendered it uninhabitable. Accordingly, the authorities have prohibited Neighborhood from re-leasing the house to any other tenant until the premises have been decontaminated.

Neighborhood filed a breach of contract and declaratory action in Jefferson Circuit Court against Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for a determination of whether the terms of an insurance policy it had purchased from Farm Bureau covered these substantial decontamination expenses; Farm Bureau argued that the policy unambiguously excluded such coverage. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Farm Bureau. Neighborhood now appeals. We affirm.

PDF of Minutes Below Fold:

Download (PDF, 108KB)

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.