Tort, Insurance and Civil Procedure Cases this month:

Insurance.  Bad Faith, defense, and reservation of rights.  Expert testimony on damages limited to intentional or negligence  infliction of emotional distress.
Indiana Insurance Company v. James Demetre 
2015-SC-000107-DG August 24, 2017 

Demetre sued his insurer, the Indiana Insurance Company, for bad faith arising from breach of his insurance contract, violation of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, and violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.  The Court determined that Indiana Insurance Company’s decisions to defend the insured under a reservation of rights, seek declaratory judgment, and settle tort claims did not preclude a bad faith claim. Further, the Court determined as a matter of first impression that the requirement outlined in Osborne v. Keeney, 399 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2012) for expert medical or scientific proof is limited to claims of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Wrongful Death, Immunity.  School Officials.  Bullying.
Floyd Lawrence Patton, Adm’r of the Estate of Stephen Lawrence Patton v. David Bickford, et al.
2013-SC-000560-DG August 24, 2017 

Held: 1) that the trial court correctly determined that the school administrators were protected by qualified immunity and entitled to summary judgment on that ground because the duty to implement a code of appropriate student behavior was a ministerial duty that administrators had satisfied by enacting extensive policies regarding bullying and harassment, the choice of specific provisions and the assessment of their adequacy being purely of discretionary character; and that the teachers are not immune from suit on the basis of qualified official immunity because the duty of the Teachers to report bulling was a ministerial duty to which immunity does not attach; (3) action in wrongful death will lie for suicide proximately caused by negligence of teachers failing address bullying behavior; the suicide was not an intervening, superseding cause that bars such actions; 4) trial court properly granted summary judgment under the facts and circumstances as presented in the record in this case because the Estate was unable to make a prima facie showing that the teacher’s conduct was the cause-in-fact (the “but-for” cause) or the proximate cause of the suicide.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Roniesha Adams f/k/a Roniesha Sanders, et al. 
2015-SC-000366-DG 

Held that the MVRA provides that claimants must submit certain information to an insurer and, if that information is not forthcoming, the insurer should seek relief from the court. See KRS 304.39-208. However, the information covered by the relevant statute involves the claimants’ medical condition, not information regarding the underlying accident. Therefore, the Court held that State Farm was entitled to obtain information about the accident via questioning under oath. However, to obtain information about the occupants’ medical conditions, State Farm was required to get a court order. Because some of the information State Farm wanted involved the accident, the trial court properly granted judgment in State Farm’s favor.

Attorney Fees and Discharge for Cause.
Hughes and Coleman, PLLC v. Ann Clark Chambers, etc. 
2015-SC-000435-DG 

Opinion of the Court by Justice Wright. All sitting; all concur. Personal-injury law firm Hughes & Coleman was hired by Travis Underwood after he was injured in a car crash. Underwood eventually became dissatisfied with the firm and fired them. Shortly after discharging Hughes & Coleman and hiring another attorney, Underwood agreed to a final settlement of his claims. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide whether Hughes & Coleman was entitled to be compensated for their services rendered before being fired. The Court noted that, “[o]ur precedent entitles a discharged lawyer to receive, on a quantum meruit basis, a portion of a contingency fee on a former client’s recovery—so long as the termination was not ‘for cause.’” Because Hughes & Coleman’s firing was not for cause under this rule, the Court held that the firm was entitled to quantum meruit compensation. 

Here are the published decisions this month: