Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging fraud, defamation, abuse of process, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. Plaintiff also requested declaratory judgment, accounting, and injunctive relief. Pursuant to the parties’ prior agreement, which included an arbitration clause, the trial court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on all counts with the exception of claims involving defamation and abuse of process. Because Defendants appealed, the trial court refrained from ruling on Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. Consequently, Plaintiff petitioned the court of appeals, without success, for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed. Plaintiff also appealed the trial court’s order compelling arbitration. Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ appeals were consolidated. The court of appeals affirmed the entirety of the trial court’s order compelling arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Plaintiff’s appeal because Plaintiff attempted to appeal from a non-final order; and (2) the court of appeals correctly determined that the abuse of process and defamation claims fell outside the agreement to arbitrate. View "Linden v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Appellants, former employees of the University of Kentucky, filed suit against the University alleging that, by rejecting their applications for disability status, the University breached a written contract consisting of a staff handbook and associated personnel policy documents defining the disability compensation programs. The court of appeals dismissed Appellants’ claims on the basis of governmental immunity, concluding that the documents establishing the University’s employee disability compensation did not constitute a written contract, and therefore, the University was shielded from Appellants’ claims by the doctrine of governmental immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants did not establish that the General Assembly expressly waived sovereign immunity in claims based upon implied contracts arising from a state university’s employee handbooks and personnel policies, and the relevant University personnel documents specifically disclaimed the creation of a contract; and (2) therefore, sovereign immunity remained a valid affirmative defense under the circumstances presented. View "Furtula v. Univ. of Ky." on Justia Law

Appellants, two employees of the University of Kentucky, sued the University, claiming that the University breached contractual obligations to provide them with benefits under a long-term disability compensation program adopted by the University. The circuit courts denied the University’s motions to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity. The court of appeals reversed both circuit court decisions, holding that the University was entitled to governmental immunity. Appellants appealed, arguing that the documents of the University establishing the long-term disability compensation program constituted a written contract falling within the waiver of governmental immunity set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 45A.245. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants’ claims were not based upon a written contract with the University, and therefore, sovereign immunity remained a valid affirmative defense under the circumstances of this case. View "Furtula v. Univ. of Ky." on Justia Law

Some members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (Union), an unincorporated association of carpenters, volunteered to help build a barn for Birchwood Conservation Center, a non-profit organization, but failed to complete the barn. Birchwood filed a complaint alleging breach of contract or promissory estoppel. The trial court dismissed Birchwood’s action for lack of standing. Birchwood then filed an amended complaint substituting four new party plaintiffs who did possess standing. The trial court dismissed the new plaintiffs’ claims, concluding that the Union could not be sued because it was a voluntary association. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the Union waived the defense of lack of capacity to be sued. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the case, holding that, under the facts of this case, the Union did not waive the defense of lack of capacity to be sued. View "United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Birchwood Conservancy" on Justia Law

A former teacher, Terum Hopper, filed a wrongful termination action against the Jefferson County Board of Education. The Board moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hopper’s tort claims were barred by governmental immunity and that Hopper was required to pursue the administrative remedies set forth in Ky. Rev. Stat. 161.790 to challenge the termination of his employment contract. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion as to the governmental immunity claims but denied the motion as to the breach of contract claims, declaring that Hopper was entitled to file suit on these claims rather than pursue administrative remedies. The Board sought a writ prohibiting the lower court from trying Hopper’s breach of contract claims. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and that the Board had an adequate remedy. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ, holding that because Hopper filed an action in the circuit court without first exhausting the administrative remedies provided in section 161.790, the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear his claim. View "Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Hon. Brian C. Edwards" on Justia Law

After Donald Brown had worked for Charles T. Creech, Inc. for more than sixteen years, Creech asked Brown to sign an agreement that contained a non-compete provision. Brown signed the agreement. After Brown went to work for Standlee Hay Company, Creech sued Brown and Standlee, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, intentional interference with a contract, intentional interference with existing, and prospective business contacts. The trial court issued a temporary injunction enjoining Brown from directly or indirectly competing with Creech and from using information regarding Creech’s customers. The court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the temporary injunction, and the trial court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Standlee and Brown. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that issues of fact remained as to whether the non-compete portion of the agreement was enforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agreement was not enforceable. View "Creech, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

Ann Shannon was the sole member of a limited liability company (LLC). In 2004, Shannon signed a lease for commercial space with the property’s owner, Rick Pannell, on behalf of the LLC. In 2005, the LLC was administratively dissolved. In 2006, Shannon and Pannell entered into a release of the old lease and a new lease. The new lease expressly stated that the LLC was the tenant and was signed by Shannon but did not mention Shannon’s company capacity in any direct way. Pannell subsequently sued for breach of the lease, naming the LLC and Shannon individually. Shortly after, the LLC was reinstated. The circuit court concluded that Shannon was entitled to immunity from personal liability and awarded Pannell damages against the LLC under the lease. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based on the facts of this case, Shannon did not directly obligate herself because she clearly signed the lease in her representative capacity and the lease was expressly with the company; and (2) Shannon could not be personally liable under Kentucky’s Limited Liability Company Act or under the theory that she exceeded her authority as an agent of the LLC during the dissolution. View "Pannell v. Shannon" on Justia Law

Appellant was severely injured in an automobile collision in Kentucky while driving a truck for Miller Pipeline Corporation. Appellant received workers’ compensation benefits and settled with the tortfeasor and then sought to recover the remainder of his damages from underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in Miller’s policy with Zurich American Insurance Company. Zurich denied coverage because Miller had allegedly rejected UIM coverage in Kentucky. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Zurich, concluding that the inclusion of UIM coverage in the policy was a mutual mistake by Miller and Zurich. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the doctrine of mutual mistake was erroneously applied by the courts below. Remanded for an order granting Appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of UIM coverage. View "Nichols v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant was injured while working for Employer, which had an insurance policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Company. The policy included an underinsured motorist (UIM) endorsement. After settling with the tortfeasor, Appellant sought damages from the UIM coverage in the Zurich policy. After Zurich refused Appellant’s claim, Appellant sued Zurich. Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Zurich on the grounds that the UIM coverage included in the policy was the result of a mutual mistake in the making of the insurance contract. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting Appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of UIM coverage, holding that reformation of the insurance contract on the grounds of mutual mistake was improper because (1) the facts did not establish that at the time the insurance contract was formed, the minds of the contracting parties met with the common intent to execute a policy that excluded UIM coverage; and (2) Zurich did not assert the mistake or deny the existence of UIM coverage until after Appellant had released the tortfeasor. View "Nichols v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between a condominium association (the Council) and one of its co-owners (Ballard) regarding the need to replace and who should bear the cost of replacement of a two-story wall of windows in Ballard's condominium. Ballard filed suit against the Council seeking damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims. The Council, meanwhile, replaced the wall of windows and filed a lien statement and lis pendens to serve as notice that it was asserting a lien against Ballard's condominium. The Council counterclaimed. Ballard amended her complaint to assert, inter alia, a slander of title claim. After a jury trial, the trial court awarded judgment to Ballard and ordered the Council to release its lis pendens notice and statement of lien from Ballard's condominium. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Ballard's slander of title claim was properly submitted to the jury; and (2) the court of appeals correctly determined that the Council did not have a fiduciary duty to Ballard, and therefore, the fiduciary claim should have been dismissed rather than a new trial ordered. Remanded. View "Ballard v. 1400 Willow Council of Co-Owners, Inc." on Justia Law