Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants Tanya and Jeffrey Childers filed this action against Appellees, Dr. Sandra Geile and Marshal Emergency Services Associates, PSC, claiming severe emotional distress caused by the outrageous and intentional or reckless conduct of Dr. Geile when she told them Tanya had miscarried their child when in fact she had not. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether summary judgment for Appellees was proper because a claim for intentional infliction of emotion distress cannot be maintained when the same facts support a traditional tort claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress did not apply to these facts, and summary judgment was proper because the doctor's conduct was properly the subject of a traditional tort claim. View "Childers v. Geile" on Justia Law

This case presented the question of whether an automobile insurance policy's permissive user step-down provision was valid and enforceable. Specifically, the Supreme Court addressed whether the particular provision at issue was sufficiently conspicuous, plain, and clear to satisfy the doctrine of reasonable expectations. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, declaring the permissive user step-down provision enforceable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the policy's permissive user step-down provision was insufficiently plain and clear to defeat the reasonable expectations of the insureds, and therefore, the provision violated the doctrine of reasonable expectations. Remanded. View "Bidwell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Under Kentucky's dog-bite liability statutes, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages caused by the dog. This case presented the questions whether a landlord can be liable under the statutory scheme's broad definition of "owner" and whether that liability can extend to injuries caused by a tenant's dog off the leased premises. The Supreme Court held that (1) landlord can be the owner of a tenant's dog for the purposes of liability under certain circumstances, but any such liability extends only to injuries caused on or immediately adjacent to the premises; and (2) for that reason, the landlord in this case could not be liable under the statutes. View "Benningfield v. Zinsmeister" on Justia Law

When calculating the income benefit for he claimant's work-related injury, the ALJ apportioned sixty-three percent of the twenty-one percent permanent impairment rating that existed at maximum medical improvement (MMI) to a pre-existing active condition, which was non-compensable. The court of appeals affirmed the workers' compensation board's decision to vacate the calculation on the ground that the ALJ should have subtracted the pre-existing active impairment rating that existed immediately before the injury from the impairment rating that existed at MMI and based the income benefit on the remainder. The employer appealed, arguing that nothing prevented the ALJ from apportioning the impairment rating at MMI based on permissible inferences drawn from the medical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the board and court of appeals applied the correct methodology for determining the impairment rating upon which to base income benefits. View "Audi of Lexington v. Elam" on Justia Law

In 1988, Gregory Wilson was convicted of, inter alia, murder and kidnapping and received the death sentence. In 2010, Wilson moved the trial court to prohibit execution of the death sentence because of his mental retardation and to compel DNA testing of hairs and semen found in the victim's automobile and used by the prosecution in his trial. The trial court denied both motions without holding an evidentiary hearing on either motion. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial court's ruling on Wilson's motion denying DNA testing of the hairs; (2) vacated the trial court's order to the extent that it failed to rule on whether Wilson was entitled to DNA testing of the semen and remanded this issue to the trial court for a ruling; and (3) vacated the trial court's ruling on the mental retardation motion and remanded this issue to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether Wilson was exempt from execution because he was a mentally retarded offender. View "Wilson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether Ky. Rev. Stat. 342.730(6) entitled UPS Airlines to receive credit against its liability under section 342.730(1) for the payment of loss of license benefits that were the product of a collective bargaining agreement between UPS Airlines and the Independent Pilots Association (IPA), of which Claimant was a member. Claimant, a UPS pilot, sustained a work-related injury and underwent surgery. UPS paid the entire premium for the loss of license insurance plan. UPS subsequently sought leave to credit Claimant's loss of license benefits against its liability for income benefits. Reversing an ALJ's decision, the workers' compensation board found that section 342.730(6) did not entitle UPS to a dollar-for-dollar credit against Claimant's past due and future income benefits for all benefits paid under the loss of license plan. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed to the extent that UPS was not entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit; but (2) reversed with respect to the conclusion that loss of license benefits were not funded exclusively by the employer for the purposes of section 342.730(6) because they were bargained-for benefits, holding that section 342.730(6) does not entitle UPS to credit the overpayment of voluntary benefits against future income benefits. Remanded. View "UPS Airlines v. West" on Justia Law

William Louis Rogers was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance and one count of possessing a controlled substance. The charges for which Rogers was indicted - three counts of trafficking - arose after he twice allegedly sold small amounts of cocaine to a confidential informant and after police, acting pursuant to a search warrant, found more cocaine and drug paraphernalia secreted in his garage. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err (1) by denying Rogers' motion to suppress the garage evidence as the fruit of an illegal search; (2) by refusing to sever the trafficking charge based on the garage evidence from those based on the alleged sales to the confidential informant; and (3) by limiting Rogers' cross-examination of a forensic chemist, who tested various seized items for the presence of cocaine. View "Rogers v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant Daniel Newman was convicted of two counts of first-degree sodomy and one count of attempted first-degree sexual abuse. The jury recommended a life sentence for each of the sodomy convictions, and Appellant was sentenced in accordance with the jury's recommendation. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Appellant's convictions, holding (a) the trial court did not err by introducing other crimes evidence, and (b) questions by the prosecutor during the cross-examination of Appellant were improper but did not rise to the level of palpable error; but (2) vacated Appellant's life sentence, holding that the jury was improperly instructed as to the sentencing range. Remanded for a new penalty phase. View "Newman v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

This case presented the question of whether the doctrine of equitable subrogation may be used to reorder the priority of a mortgage lien where the mortgage holder had constructive but not actual knowledge of a pre-existing lien when it paid off an earlier mortgage as part of a refinancing deal and there was no fraud or other misconduct that would have prevented the discovery of the lien. The trial court applied the doctrine to reorder the priority of liens. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the doctrine did not apply under the facts of this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because equitable subrogation is not available to a lienholder who has actual or constructive knowledge of a preexisting lien, the court of appeals was correct in concluding that the remedy was not available to the mortgage holder. View "Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Appellant Lloyd Hammond was convicted by a jury of three counts of murder, one count of first-degree burglary, one count of first-degree unlawful imprisonment, and retaliating against a participant in the legal process. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant's convictions, holding (1) Appellant was deprived of a fair trial when one of the murder charges was improperly joined for trial with the other charges; and (2) admission of hearsay statements of a material witness under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing was not based upon substantial evidence. Remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. View "Hammond v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law