Curtis Lee v. Phoenix American Administrators, LLC, 2019 CA 001154

Background

In 2014 Lee bought a used Kia and paid $750 for a GAP waiver administered by Phoenix American; Regional Acceptance was the lender/lienholder.
On September 24, 2017 Lee’s Kia was totaled; Regional received the insurer’s total-loss payment on November 9, 2017, triggering a 120-day claim window (ending March 9, 2018) under the GAP Waiver.
Lee swore he called Phoenix American shortly after the wreck and was told forms would be mailed, but did not receive them; he first received forms in late March and returned materials on March 29, 2018.
Phoenix American claims it first learned of the loss from Regional on February 15, 2018, mailed forms to Lee Feb. 16 and re-sent on March 16, and received incomplete materials March 29, denying the claim as untimely.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Phoenix American, finding Lee’s claim was submitted late and incomplete under the GAP Waiver; Lee appealed arguing factual disputes and contract interpretation issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lee)	Defendant's Argument (Phoenix American)	Held
Whether Lee "submitted" his claim within the 120‑day contractual period	A timely phone notification to Phoenix American satisfied the submission requirement or at least started the process	The contract requires notification, receipt of Phoenix’s GAP claim form, completion of that form, and delivery of all listed documents within 120 days	The contract is ambiguous; reporting the loss to Phoenix within 120 days meets the claimant's initial obligation. There is a genuine factual dispute whether Lee gave timely notice, so summary judgment was improper
Whether failure to produce all listed supporting documents within 120 days voids the claim	Many listed documents were unnecessary or already in Regional/Phoenix possession; Phoenix suffered no prejudice from any delay	All listed documents were conditions to a timely claim; absence makes claim untimely/incomplete	Requiring strict production of the listed documents under these facts is unconscionable; several items were irrelevant or in lender’s possession and Phoenix showed no prejudice
Authenticity and sufficiency of Phoenix American’s timeline evidence	Phoenix’s business records were not properly authenticated and Phoenix offered no sworn affidavit; factual disputes remain	Phoenix’s activity log and mailings show notice and resending of forms and that Lee’s submissions were late	Phoenix’s records lacked proper certification/affidavit under evidentiary rules; factual disputes exist, precluding summary judgment
Privity: whether Lee could enforce the GAP Waiver against Phoenix	Lee could sue as a third‑party beneficiary of the contract between Phoenix and Regional	Phoenix argued lack of privity precludes Lee’s claim	Trial court already rejected lack of privity; Phoenix did not cross‑appeal that ruling and the appellate court declined to affirm on that alternative ground

Key Cases Cited

Lewis v. B & R Corp., 56 S.W.3d 432 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001) (summary‑judgment standard)
Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991) (summary‑judgment burden and standards)
Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996) (appellate review of summary judgment)
Palmer v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 882 S.W.2d 117 (Ky. 1994) (summary judgment principles)
First Commonwealth Bank v. West, 55 S.W.3d 829 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000) (contract interpretation is question of law)
Morganfield Nat’l Bank v. Damien Elder & Sons, 836 S.W.2d 893 (Ky. 1992) (contract interpretation de novo)
3D Enterprises Contracting Corp. v. Louisville & Jefferson County, 174 S.W.3d 440 (Ky. 2005) (stay within four corners for unambiguous contracts)
Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002) (contract interpretation principles)
Majestic Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Majestic Oaks Farms, 530 S.W.3d 435 (Ky. 2017) (contra proferentem and construing ambiguities against drafter)
Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp. v. Wilder, 47 S.W.3d 335 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001) (scrutiny of adhesion contracts in consumer transactions)
Brown v. Barkley, 628 S.W.2d 616 (Ky. 1982) (cross‑appeal requirement to preserve alternative grounds)