#SAFE AUTO INSURANCE LOUISVILLE KY DRIVERS#
#SAFE AUTO INSURANCE LOUISVILLE KY DRIVER#

Kepple also claims that he is entitled to basic reparation benefits ('BRB') for the second accident. Plaintiffs filed UM claims with Safe Auto, which refused to pay them on the grounds that Allen's UM policy does not cover hit-and-run incidents. At the time, he was driving a vehicle covered under Allen's policy. Kepple was involved in a second, later automobile accident on June 15, 2003. Dale Kepple, the other plaintiff in this case, was a passenger in Allen's vehicle. The first accident occurred on January 16, 2003, when an unknown and unidentified vehicle struck the automobile driven by Allen and left the scene. This civil action arises out of two automobile accidents and Safe Auto's refusal to provide coverage in relation to them. Lesha Allen, a plaintiff in this action, purchased and maintains an insurance policy (the 'policy'), which includes uninsured motorist ('UM') coverage, from the defendant insurer, Safe Auto Insurance Company ('Safe Auto'). This action is before the court upon the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (DN 8) and the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (DN 10). 'Such multiple and inconsistent results would defeat the public policy underlying Kentucky UM insurance: the compensation of people who are injured by the negligence of uninsured motorists.' Id. It further opined that if it were to adopt the insurer's logic, then policies written in Kentucky could be construed to mean different things in different states. The Kentucky Supreme Court rejected this argument, opining that under Kentucky's pure comparative-fault statute, Preston's estate would be entitled to recover the portion of damages not caused by Preston's own negligence. The insurer argued that Preston could not recover under the policy because a Georgia court determined that he was not 'legally entitled to' recover.

#SAFE AUTO INSURANCE LOUISVILLE KY DRIVER#

That policy provided that it 'would pay all sums the insured is legally entitled to recover as compensatory damages from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle.' U.S.F. G., sought declaratory relief from the Fayette Circuit Court in Kentucky with respect to its rights and duties to pay on its policy with Preston.

Lesha Allen, a plaintiff in this action, purchased and maintains an insurance policy (the 'policy'), which includes uninsured motorist ('UM') coverage, from the defendant insurer, Safe Auto Insurance Company ('Safe Auto').

Accordingly, this court determines that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the plaintiffs' bad faith claims and that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Furthermore, Kepple's BRB claim is brought under the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act, KRS 304.39-010, et seq., which subsumes his claim of bad faith. Ins., 759 S.W.2d 819, 820 (1988) (recognizing that a homeowner's insurance policy holder has a remedy under the Consumer Protection Act when an insurance company denies a claim out of bad faith). 1997) ('The Consumer Protection Act has no application to third-party claims.') (quoting Anderson v. Kepple is not the insured under the policy, and so he cannot make a claim under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, KRS 367.110, et seq.

Additionally, Safe Auto argues, and the plaintiffs concede, that Kepple cannot assert a bad faith claim against Safe Auto for denying his BRB claim.

And, it is also true that the policy does list fifteen (15) other types of exclusions and does not explicitly exclude hit-and-run incidents from the definition of 'uninsured motor vehicle.' However, as will be discussed further, the absence of such specific exclusions does not convert otherwise clear language into unclear or ambiguous language in need of further clarification or construction by this court.

#SAFE AUTO INSURANCE LOUISVILLE KY DRIVERS#

It is true that Allen's policy contains no reference to unidentified drivers or hit-and-run accidents. 2002) (declining to assume that an unknown driver was an underinsured motorist). As set forth in Kentucky case law, this court should not presume that an unidentified driver has no insurance. It is clear that Safe Auto has narrowly tailored its coverage to include only the minimum requirements under KRS 304.20-020, and its definition of 'uninsured motor vehicle' does not include motor vehicles for which insurance status cannot be determined.

Safe auto insurance louisville ky