795 F.Supp.3d 977
W.D. Ky.2025Background
- Plaintiff Tammie Austin sought insurance proceeds from a State Farm homeowner’s policy after her husband set fire to their home and committed suicide.
- Austin was married to Moore but moved out of the home in 2020 due to his physical abuse and drug use; she did not reside at the property at the time of the fire.
- Moore was the sole named insured; the policy included spouses as insureds only if they primarily resided with the named insured.
- State Farm denied Austin’s claim, stating she was not an insured under the policy terms.
- Austin sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of Kentucky law; summary judgment was granted on most claims, and Austin moved for reconsideration.
- Austin’s motion to reconsider and assertion of new evidence followed, along with arguments addressing the viability of her bad faith claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court's factual determinations at summary judgment | Court erred by making factual findings on domestic violence and her residence; argued facts should go to a jury | Summary judgment appropriate as there was no genuine dispute; Austin admitted not residing on property | Denied; no material dispute—Austin was not residing at the property |
| Ambiguity of the "resides primarily" language | Policy's language was ambiguous and should be read in Austin's favor | Language is unambiguous as applied; Hill case inapplicable | Denied; "resides primarily" is clear, and Austin was not a resident |
| Public policy exemption for domestic violence victims | Kentucky public policy requires exemption from residence requirement for abuse victims | Statute (KRS 304.12-211) does not apply; denial was not solely due to domestic violence | Denied; statute not applicable and no showing of manifest injustice |
| Admissibility of new evidence on motion to reconsider | Newly filed evidence should be accepted to prevent manifest injustice | Evidence was available before; not appropriate for reconsideration | Denied; new evidence not admissible at this stage |
| Viability of bad faith claims as non-insured or third-party beneficiary | Bad faith claims can proceed regardless of insured status or as third-party beneficiary | Policy did not obligate payment; Wittmer test not met | All bad faith claims dismissed; no obligation to pay under policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard requires more than a scintilla of evidence)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (standard for opposing summary judgment—no genuine factual dispute)
- Wittmer v. Jones, 864 S.W.2d 885 (Ky. 1993) (establishes elements for Kentucky bad faith insurance claims)
- Ping v. Beverly Enters., Inc., 376 S.W.3d 581 (Ky. 2012) (third-party beneficiary rights under contract law)