Kentucky Court of Appeals
Insurance - Choice of Law
Grange Property and Casualty Company v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, 445 S.W.3d 51, 2014 WL 4476480 (Ky.App. September 12, 2014)

Pruitt was injured in an motor vehicle accident with a vehicle operated by uninsured motorist Comer. At the time of the accident, Pruitt was operating a vehicle owned by its employer, which had insurance through Grange that included $1 million in UM coverage. Pruitt was also personally insured by Tennessee Farmers, which contained $100,000 in UM coverage. Grange argued that under Kentucky law the two carriers had pro rata liability for the UM loss, while Tennessee Farmers relied on a Tennessee statute which set priorities in UM coverages. The trial Court held that Tennessee law applied.

Kentucky has followed the view set out in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 (1971) in the case of insurance contracts, which bases choice of law on which state has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties. In the case of insurance contracts, the relevant parties are the insurers, not the insureds. The Pruitt policy in this case was written in Tennessee by a company that does not write insurance in Kentucky. Pruitt was a resident of Tennessee when the contract was issued. The policy specifically states that it is to be governed by the law of Tennessee. Accordingly, Tennessee law was properly applied, and Grange was the primary carrier for UM coverage in this case.

It should be noted, however, that any other conclusion would have likely violated Tennessee Farmer's due process rights since Kentucky lacked legislative jurisdiction over the contract.

Kentucky Court of Appeals
Premises Liability - Licensees
Klinglesmith v. Estate of Reba Pottinger, 445 S.W.3d 565, 2014 WL 4476515 (Ky.App. September 12, 2014)

In this case fell on a porch while returning a baking pan. Plaintiff predictably argued that she could recover from the estate of her "friend" due to the Supreme Court's decision in Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013). The Court affirmed the summary judgment entered by the trial judge on the ground that the duty owed to a licensee is not governed by Easter Seals, a fact made clear by the Easter Seals opinion itself. But it should be noted that the reasoning of the opinion tortured and belies a lack of understanding of what should be basic principles of tort law that have not yet been displaced. The Supreme Court will likely replace the opinion with its own reaching the same result or order it depublished, but if it stands rely on the result but use your own analysis.