Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court granting a directed verdict on a bad faith claim, holding that Wittmer v. Jones, 864 S.W.2d 885, 890 (Ky. 1993), established the applicable legal standard for both common law and statutory bad-faith claims.Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) brought a declaratory judgment action disputing coverage under a commercial general liability policy insuring K-2 Catering, LLC for claims Haley Belt made stemming from an accident that occurred during an event hosted by K-2's member-managers at their residence. Ultimately, judgment was entered declaring coverage under the policy. While the action was pending, Belt brought a separate action against K-2 and CIC, alleging bad faith and negligence in the settlement of her claims under K-2's policy. The negligence claims were settled and, after a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict against CIC. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court erred when it failed to grant CIC a directed verdict on the bad faith claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred when it failed to apply the Wittmer standard and grant a directed verdict for CIC. View "Belt v. Cincinnati Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the Judicial Conduct Commission that Family Court Judge Julia Gordon committed judicial misconduct and ordered that she be removed from office, holding that there was no error warranting reversal of the Commission's final order.The Commission served Judge Gordon with notice of formal proceedings outlining six charges against her alleging violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Commission ultimately found that the claims against Judge Gordon indicated violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and removed her from office. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, given Judge Gordon's numerous violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the sanction of removal was appropriate. View "Gordon v. Judicial Conduct Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying two petitions for writs of prohibition in these cases involving allegations of the unconstitutionality of recently-enacted Ky. Rev. Stat. Chapter 202C, holding that the court of appeals did not err.KRS 202C, which went into effect April 2021, created a procedure for indefinite involuntary commitment for incompetent criminal defendants. Petitioners, who were in the midst of KRS 202C proceedings, filed petitions for writs of prohibition requesting relief from the alleged unconstitutional process set out in section 202C. The court of appeals denied relief, concluding that Petitioners had an adequate remedy by way of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that writ relief was not appropriate. View "G.P. v. Honorable Bisig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals reversing in part the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Barbourville on all of Plaintiff's claims holding that the reasoning of the trial court was sound.Plaintiff sustained burns on the bottom of her feet after visiting a water park owned by the City, requiring eventual amputation of a portion of her foot. Plaintiff sued the City, bringing claims under theories of premises liability, strict liability, and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on all claims. The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment on the premises liability claim and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the City on Plaintiff's strict liability, breach of contract, and premises liability claims. View "City of Barbourville v. Hoskins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court sentencing Defendant to twenty years in prison in connection with his convictions for three counts of unlawful imprisonment in the first-degree, wanton endangerment in the first-degree, and criminal trespass in the first-degree, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the charges relating to two victims; (2) Defendant's convictions for first-degree wanton endangerment and first-degree unlawful imprisonment did not violate the on double jeopardy; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of a prior incident of unlawful imprisonment; and (4) there was no prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing phase. View "Kelly v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of one count of tampering with physical evidence and being a persistent felony offender in the second-degree, holding that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict on the tampering charge at the close of the evidence at it was error not to do so.Twice during his trial, Defendant moved for a directed verdict on the tampering charge, arguing that no reasonable juror could find that he concealed the synthetic marijuana leading to his conviction with the requisite intent. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence which a jury could conclude Defendant tampered with physical evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Bell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice the indictment against Defendant based on the violation of Defendant's right to a speedy trial, holding that the the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice the case against Defendant.Six months and twenty-three days following Defendant's arrest for first-degree possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia the circuit court dismissed the indictment against Defendant with prejudice, finding that the delay in trying the case had injured Defendant's right to a speedy trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the period between Defendant's arrest and the dismissal of his case was not presumptively prejudicial and that the determination that Defendant's speedy-trial rights were violated was premature. View "Commonwealth v. Hensley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of John and Beth Bruner based on its finding that a disputed road was a public road by prescription, holding that the road was a public road by prescription.Don and Cathy Cooper sought to have the subject road, which had been maintained by the fiscal court and used by the public and the Bruners, adjoining landowners, declared their private driveway. During the litigation, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's order finding that the road was not a public road or an easement. The circuit court subsequently granted summary judgment for the Bruners, finding that the road was a public road by prescription. View "Bruner v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the court of appeals determining that the prior notice of events exclusion (Exclusion 15) contained in the insurance policies applied to deny the coverage sought by King's Daughters Medical Center (KDMC) for claims made against it and that Insurers were entitled to recoupment of expenses, holding that the court of appeals erred as to both issues.Multiple medical malpractice claims were asserted against KDMC alleging unnecessary cardiac operations and lack of informed consent, among other allegations. Insurers subsequently filed a declaratory action in circuit court to determine their rights and coverage under the relevant policies. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of KDMC. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that Exclusion 15 applied to bar professional liability and excess coverage for the underlying litigation and that Insurers were entitled to recoupment of their expenses thus far in defending the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Exclusion 15 did not bar coverage; and (2) the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to rule on recoupment. View "Ashland Hospital Corp. v. Darwin Select Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court in this appeal challenging a ruling of the circuit court concerning the constitutionality of House Bill 348 (HB 348) and remanded the matter with instructions to dismiss the action in its entirety without prejudice, holding that Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for lack of standing.HB 348 partially adopted the Supreme Court's 2016 proposed judicial redistricting plan, including the recommendation of the Supreme Court that one of the divisions of general jurisdiction in the thirty-first judicial circuit be eliminated. Plaintiff initiated this action arguing that HB 348's elimination of one division of general jurisdiction violated section 112(3) of the Kentucky Constitution. In a mixed ruling, the circuit court concluded that HB 348 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment, holding that Plaintiff failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact to confer constitutional standing in her individual capacity. View "Bradley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law