PUBLISHED DECISIONS.
523. COX V. CROSS
Immunity. Police officer vehicular pursuit.
Furthermore, “[a]n officer has discretion to decide whether to begin, continue, or end the emergency pursuit, but not for the way he or she operates the police vehicle during the emergency pursuit. Driving is a matter of duty and training, and it is not subject to deliberation or judgment.” City of Brooksville v. Warner, 533 S.W.3d 688, 694-95 (Ky. App. 2017) (emphasis added). Under the present circumstances, Cox was performing a discretionary act when he commenced the pursuit to effectuate the arrest. But he veered from that discretion when he went off road into an open field and struck Officers Cross and Price. Id.The “dominant nature of the act” became ministerial at that point. Mattingly, 425 S.W.3d at 90 (citation omitted). The issue of his alleged negligence and whether there were standard operating procedures in place to address the situation are issues of fact for the jury to decide. The circuit court properly vacated the motionfor summary judgment on the issue of Cox’s entitlement to qualified official immunity for his alleged negligent driving.
524. MESSER V. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INS. CO.
Affirmed circuit court granting of summary judgment and dismissing the third-party bad faith claim Messer brought against Universal pursuant to the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (UCSPA), KRS1 304.12-230.
Interesting case. A short summary would not do justice to the legal and factual issues involved in a denial of liability by a motor dealer’s insurer claiming non-permissive use, claim processing, reserves, and more.
534. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. ROBERTSON
Dismissed as appeal untimely filed.
SELECTED NON-PUBLISHED DECISIONS.
524. MESSER V. UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INS. CO.
Affirmed circuit court granting of summary judgment and dismissing the third-party bad faith claim Messer brought against Universal pursuant to the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (UCSPA), KRS1 304.12-230.
Interesting case. A short summary would not do justice to the legal and factual issues involved in a denial of liability by a motor dealer’s insurer claiming non-permissive use, claim processing, reserves, and more.
534. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY V. ROBERTSON
Dismissed as appeal untimely filed.
537. O’NEAL V KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I
Affirmed trial verdict in favor of Krogers. Multiple evidentiary issues raised to no avail or were not preserved for appeal.
538. K.M. VS. COMPTON
Affirmed Jefferson Circuit Court’s summary judgment infavor of Tamela Compton and Holly Dukes dismissing Marshall’s claims for negligence, negligence per se, retaliation, and outrageous conduct arising from assaults and bullying at school.
540. SULLIVAN UNIVERSITY V MCCANN
Class action certification issues.
To conduct meaningful review of the issues, we must vacate the order and remand this matter to the circuit court so that we might be “satisfied that the trial court did ‘probe behind the pleadings’ and perform a ‘rigorous analysis’ in this case, and that its findings are supported by the record.” Hensley, 549 S.W.3d at 446. “[O]n remand the trial court should enter detailed factual findings and legal conclusions resolving the motion to certify a class. Should the trial court elect to certify a class on remand, its order must address the four prerequisites of CR 23.01 (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) and one of the three requirements of CR 23.02.” Nebraska Alliance Realty Company v. Brewer, 529 S.W.3d 307, 317 (Ky. App. 2017).
We vacate the grant of class certification and remand this matter with instructions for the Jefferson Circuit Court to conduct the required analysis for maintainability under CR 23.01 and 23.02.
MINUTES WITH LINKS TO FULL TEXT OF ALL DECISIONS.
