SCOKY announced 25 decisions for October 29, 2015; 12 decisions were published. One disciplinary matter was announced with an amended order in another, plus 7 cases granted discretionary review.
One of my favorite veterans – my dad, Theodore R. Stevens, in a picture with mom. Dad served in World War II, was a tanker with Patton. Picture was taken way before I was even a gleam. Not a day goes by that I do not think of both of them, but I know they are watching over all of us with my other favorite veterans, my brother Teddy (aka Theodore Roosevelt Stevens, II) and Diane’s dad Pappy, Morris Cox.. But, let us not forget any person who put on a uniform and/or served or supported the United States Armed Forces is one of my favorites. It’s just these few are special to me. Dad was wounded in combat, and never, ever talked about it. However, he did have a heckuva snoring problem with other soldiers drawing straws on who would make sure he was the last one to fall asleep. And, I can’t forget that my sweetie, Diane, was a civilian nurse with the Army in Germany, and I guess helping save lives of soldiers is worthy of a Veterans Day shout out, too. Love ya dad, Teddy, Pappy, and Di.
Selected published decisions:
153. Wrongful death. Negligence per se rejected in claim against min for alleged statutory violations
In Re: Nancy J. McCarty v. Covol Fuels No. 2, LLC
Published opinion by Venters Certifying the Law; Federal
Question Presented: Subcontractor injured while installing a garage door on an unfinished building at a mine site may not maintain a wrongful death action against a mine operator under a negligence per se theory for alleged violations of Kentucky mining [statutes and] regulations, codified in KRS §§ 351-352 and KAR §§ 805-825.
Based upon our review of the applicable Kentucky law and the facts relevant to this inquiry, and for the reasons set forth below, we conclude that KRS Chapters 350 2, 351 and 352 and Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR) Sections 805 and 825 do not support a wrongful death action predicated upon a theory of negligence per se in the factual context presented here. 3
155. Contracts. Automobile Insurance. Employee Exclusion
Tower Ins. Co. of New York vs. Brent Horn
Published opinion by Keller Affirming; Martin County
Questions Presented: Contract. Automobile Insurance. Employee Exclusion. Severability-of-Interests Clause. Issues include whether the severability-of-interests clause in a business auto insurance policy operates to defeat the policy’s employee exclusion when the “insured” seeking coverage is not the policyholder business, but a permissive user.
Tower Insurance Company of New York (Tower) appeals the Court of Appeals’s reversal of summary judgment and finding of coverage. The issue is whether an injured employee policy exclusion bars coverage of a permissive user. After reviewing the policy, law, and arguments, we hold that it does not and affirm the Court of Appeals.
The case at hand turns on an employee exclusion supported by an entirely different purpose—to restrict coverage for claims arising under workers’ compensation laws, which provide coverage and immunity from civil suit to employers. See 7 Am. Jur. 2d Automobile Insurance § 252 (2015). What is more, the Liberty Mutual Court rejected the argument that cases dealing with the employee exclusions and additional insureds controlled due to their differing purposes. 522 S.W.2d at 186.
Click here for a list of all our posts on Supreme Court of Kentucky decisions posted eash month as minutes. Click here for a link to archived list of minutes posted at the Administrative Office of the Courts official web site. Click here for the AOC page for this month’s minutes.
[gview file=”https://kycourtreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MNT102015.pdf”]
