Busy week with 34 decisions announced and five designated for publication. Cases of interest include workers comp decision on ALJ’s failure to apply the “triple multiplier”; weight loss releases and assumption of the risk and waivers; PIP benefits and “insurable interest” examined resulting in no PIP coverage; State Farm vs. Riggs reared its head and COA affirmed summary judgement on Statute of limitations grounds for UIM claim of a strict two years from MVA; failed attempt to “pierce the corporate veil”; medical negligence, requested in camera review of records, confidentiality; no expert on standard of care in medical negligence results in dismissal.

FIVE PUBLISHED DECISIONS.

653. ALVEY VS. DAVIS, BULLITT COUNTY SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENT
AFFIRMING. BULLITT CIR. CT.
Schools.
In this administrative appeal, Janet Alvey seeks review of the February 7, 2018, opinion and order of the Bullitt Circuit Court upholding the Bullitt County Board of Education’s decision to terminate Alvey’s employment at Brooks Elementary School. We affirm.

665. LITTRELL VS. BOSSE
AFFIRMING. SCOTT CIR CT.
Michael Littrell appeals from the summary disposition of his claims of contractual interference, outrage, witness intimidation, harassment, and official misconduct against Georgetown Police Chief Michael Bosse and the City of Georgetown. Having reviewed the record in the light most favorable to Littrell, we find no reversible error in any of the arguments presented and affirm the summary judgment of the Scott Circuit Court.

668. BROWN VS. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
AFFIRMING. OLDHAM CIR CT.
Criminal Law. Guilty plea not withdrawn,
Kenneth Brown appeals from an order of the Oldham Circuit Court denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 8.10. Brown alleges he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

675. TIPAN V. TIPAN
REVERSING AND REMANDING. JEFFERSON.
Family law. Domestic violence order.
Sarai Tipan has appealed from dismissal of her petition seeking a domestic violence order (DVO) against her father, Juan Tipan, by the Jefferson Circuit Court, Family Division Five. Following a careful review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

677. MORGAN VS. BLUEGRASS OAKWOOD, INC.
REVERSING. WORKERS COMP.
Workers Compensation. Triple multiplier.
On February 17, 2014; June 14, 2015; and April 19, 2016, Heather Morgan respectively sustained three work-related injuries while employed by Bluegrass Oakwood, Inc., as a “residential associate.” Ultimately, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an order of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) thatconsidered Morgan’s three injuries and awarded her permanent partial disability (PPD) income benefits enhanced by the double multiplier set forth in KRS1342.730(1)(c)2. On appeal before this Court, Morgan argues the ALJ misunderstood the evidence relating to the enhancement of her award; misapplied the law to his own factual findings in that respect; and that her award should have instead been enhanced by the triple multiplier set forth in KRS 342.730(1)(c)1. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse.

SELECTED NON-PUBLISHED DECISIONS.

644. KINDRED NURSING CENTERS VS. ESTATE OF VIRGINIA WELLS
AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING
Arbitration clause and power of attorney.
On remand from Sup. Ct.
This case concerns the authority of an attorney-in-fact under a power-of-attorney (POA) to enter into an arbitration agreement on hisprincipal’s behalf. We first considered the question after Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership d/b/a Oakview Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (Kindred) and its affiliated entities1 appealed from an order of the Marshall Circuit Court denying a motion to compel arbitration resulting in our opinion in Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Powell, 2013-CA-000885-MR. The matter is again before this Court after our Supreme Court remanded to us for reconsideration of our prior opinion in light of Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark, ____ U.S. ____, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 197 L.Ed.2d 806 (2017) and Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Wellner, 533 S.W.3d 189 (Ky. 2017). Having done so, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

645. HASSLER VS. RESULTS BY DESIGN LLC
AFFIRMING. JEFFERSON.
Weight loss program and assumption of risk and preinjury release.
Lori Hassler appeals from a judgment based upon an adverse jury verdict in her claim for damages allegedly incurred in services provided her by appellee Results By Design, a weight loss and fitness spa. Hassler argues that the trial court erroneously entered directed verdicts on key issues, erred in several evidentiary rulings, and impermissibly allowed the jury to consider assumption of the risk, which in combination deprived her of a fair trial. Finding no reversible error in any of the issues presented, we affirm.

Hassler subsequently initiated this litigation by filing a complaint alleging: 1) that Results by Design (Results) was operating an unlicensed healthspa as defined in Kentucky Revised Statute (“KRS”) 367.900; 2) that she was injured through Results’ negligence; 3) that Results committed consumer fraud; and 4) that she was damaged by Results’ illegal practice of medicine. At the conclusion of the presentation of her case, the trial court granted Results’ motion for a directed verdict on Hassler’s claims based on consumer fraud and the illegal practice of medicine. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of Results finding no breach of its duty to Hassler or that its actions were a substantial factor in causing her injuries.

Hassler advances several arguments to support her contention that the judgment based upon that verdict must be set aside: 1) that the trial court erred in allowing Results to introduce a signed waiver and release it into evidence; 2) that the trial court erred in failing to redact from that release language which implied Hassler had assumed the risk of her injuries; 3) that the trial court erred in refusingto submit a “health spa” standard of care in the jury instructions; 4) that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of Results on Hassler’s claim predicated on the unauthorized practice of medicine; 5) that the trial court erred in directing the verdict on Hassler’s claim that Results violated the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act; and 6) that the trial court erred in refusing to admit on redirect examination evidence of any standard of care applicable to health spas or personal trainers. We perceive no reversible error in any of these contentions.

NOTE. This decisions also address the “waiver” signed by the claimant and judicial admonitions.

652. BATCHELOR VS. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO.
AFFIRMING. JEFFERSON.
PIP policy and insurable interest.
Affirmed trial court granting of summary judgment dismissing claim for pip coverage holding no insurable interest.

Following discovery, Allstate moved for summary judgment. Afterconsidering the motion and Batchelor’s response, the trial court granted summaryjudgment to Allstate, finding Bailey to be without an insurable interest in the Envoy. In its opinion, the trial court explicitly advised that the facts of this case were better suited for a claim against Allstate and/or its agent. In response, Batchelor moved to amend her complaint so as to add Samuels as a party to the lawsuit on a negligence claim. A mere day after Batchelor’s amended complaint was filed, she filed her notice of appeal.

This Court has remained steadfast in its definition of what it means to possess an insurable interest. A party will be deemed to have an insurable interest in a subject property where she derives a clear pecuniary benefit from its preservation and, conversely, a pecuniary loss from its destruction. Crabb v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 255 S.W.2d 990, 991 (Ky. 1953). One’s pecuniary interestis typically evidenced by an equitable interest in, or a collateral contractual obligation associated with the subject property. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kentucky Cent. Ins. Co., 700 S.W.2d 76, 77 (Ky. 1985).

Additionally, that pecuniary interest must exist at the time of contracting as well as at the time of the loss. Crabb, 255 S.W.2d at 991. Where no such interest exists, an insurance contract is void from its inception. Sparks v. Trustguard Ins. Co., 389 S.W.3d 121, 126 (Ky. App. 2012). Sparks saw a titleholder to a motor vehicle attempting to recover insurance benefits under a policy listing her long-time companion as the sole insured thereunder. Id. at 123. Even though the titleholder and the insured were long-time companions, shared a household, and shared use of the vehicle, this Court found the insured in that case to be without an insurable interest. Id. at 125-26. As such, this Court concluded that the insurance policy was void ab initio. Id.

654. LYNCH VS. GEICO GENERAL INS. CO.
AFFIRMING. JEFFERSON.
Underinsured Motorist Benefits. Statute of limitations.
Re-examined State Farm vs. Riggs, but followed Riggs and applied contractual limitations of two years after accident and not accrual and SOL per tort of two years after MVA or last PIP, whichever is later.

NOTE. IMHO it makes absolutely no sense to provide that the contractual claim can expired prior to the underlying tort claim. For our courts to apply these “contracts of adhesion” such as insurance policies with their approved language providing coverage that is mandatory under state law is abominable.

664. YALKUT M.D. VS. RUBY M.D.
AFFIRMING. MADISON.
Business. Piercing Corporate Veil.
ffirmed trial court Summary Judgement dismissing attempt to pierce the corporate veil.
672. ROBINSON VS. COLEMAN-COMPTON O.D.
AFFIRMING. PIKE.
Medical negligence claim. In-camera review of records on claim that optometrist office altered them and and claim of error admitting confidential patient records.

676. PARKS VS. LIAU
AFFIRMING. FAYETTE
Medical negligence
The trial court found it impossible for Parks to prevail on her medical negligence action against Dr. Liau because she did not have an expert to testify that he deviated from the standard of care as pertains toobtaining Parks’ informed consent for the procedure. Therefore, the trial court found Dr. Liau was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After a careful review, finding no error, we affirm.

MINUTES WITH LINKS TO FULL TEXT OF ALL DECISIONS.