Butt v. Independence Club Venture, Ltd.
453 S.W.3d 189
Ky. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellants Butt and Petigo, as co-administrators of estates, and other family members, sue for dram shop liability after a February 2010 crash linked to an intoxicated driver at Electric Cowboy.
- Plaintiffs settled with the driver (King), his family, and insurer in May 2010; releases include a broad hold-harmless language and a statement that the release does not preclude action against other potentially responsible parties.
- Plaintiffs allege Electric Cowboy negligently served King, causing the crash and injuries; the action seeks damages under Kentucky’s Dram Shop Act.
- Appellee moved for summary judgment arguing the hold-harmless release precludes any dram shop liability per DeStock #14 v. Logsdon (Ky. 1999).
- Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment in 2013, concluding plaintiffs cannot recover because of indemnity and hold-harmless provisions.
- Court of Appeals affirms, holding the plain language of the release effectuates a release of dram shop liability and avoiding the circuity of litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the hold-harmless release preclude dram shop liability | Butt argues the release language is unambiguous and preserves claims against appellee; the hold-harmless clause cannot bar dram shop liability. | Electric Cowboy contends DeStock #14 v. Logsdon controls, and the hold-harmless provision releases all claims, including dram shop liability. | Yes; the release precludes recovery and indemnity avoids dram shop liability. |
| Contract interpretation of the release language | Release shows intent to exclude only named parties from preclusion; the language supports preservation of dram shop claims. | Release language is unambiguous and broad enough to encompass hold harmless and indemnity for any claims arising from the accident, including dram shop. | Release language is unambiguous and broadly encompasses hold-harmless indemnity, precluding dram shop claim. |
| Whether DeStock #14 v. Logsdon governs this case and supports summary judgment | DeStock should not be read to extinguish dram shop liability where intent of release is not to bar such claims. | DeStock and related Hiles lines require treating hold-harmless as releasing dram shop liability when plainly stated. | DeStock controls; hold-harmless provisions bar dram shop claims. |
| Whether punitive damages remain an issue after summary judgment | Plaintiffs preserve punitive damages; the change in law may affect recovery. | If summary judgment on dram shop claim stands, punitive damages are moot. | Not reached; punitive damages issue not decided due to dismissal on dram shop liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeStock #14 v. Logsdon, 993 S.W.2d 952 (Ky. 1999) (Dram shop liability secondary to intoxicated tortfeasor; hold-harmless releases can extinguish dram shop claims under indemnity.)
- Crime Fighters Patrol v. Hiles, 740 S.W.2d 936 (Ky. 1987) (Hold-harmless language can enforce indemnity against claims arising from an assault.)
- Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. App. 1996) (Summary judgment standard; view record in light favorable to non-movant.)
- Steelvest v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991) (Summary judgment standard; movant must show no genuine issue of material fact.)
- Lexington Country Club v. Stevenson, 390 S.W.2d 137 (Ky. 1965) (Indemnity principles and cross-claims in settlement context.)