Hill v. State Farm Insurance Co.
2012 Ky. App. LEXIS 109
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hill sustained injuries in a 2006 auto accident and sued the tortfeasor in Boone Circuit Court in 2008.
- Hill sought underinsured motorist coverage from State Farm after liability limits were exhausted.
- On September 21, 2009, Hill moved to amend to add State Farm; motion was mailed September 18, 2009.
- Hearing on the motion occurred October 6, 2009; amended complaint filed; summons issued October 14, 2009.
- Contractual limitations period provided by State Farm expired around September 25, 2009; last PIP payment was September 25, 2007.
- Trial court initially denied, then granted State Farm's summary judgment motion; Hill appealed seeking reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amending to add a new party commences the action under the contract. | Hill contends filing the motion to amend (with amended complaint) before expiry commenced the action. | State Farm argues commencement occurs when summons issues or original complaint is filed. | Amendment filing can commence; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether due diligence and notice justify equitable tolling of the contract period. | Hill argues due diligence and notice prevented prejudice; timely action commenced. | State Farm argues no tolling; action barred by contract time bar. | Equitable tolling applied; notice given to State Farm before expiry; no prejudice to defend. |
| What constitutes commencement for amended complaints under the contract. | Hill maintains amended filing with leave to amend should count as commence. | State Farm contends commence is tied to summons issuance per CR rules for original actions. | Filing the motion to amend and attaching the amended complaint, with later summons, suffices to commence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragland v. DiGiuro, 352 S.W.3d 908 (Ky.App.2010) (statutory limitations and de novo review of law issues)
- Cuppy v. Gen. Ace. Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 378 S.W.2d 629 (Ky.1964) (statutory interpretation and limitations periods)
- Kemper Nat’l Ins. Cos. v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc., 82 S.W.3d 869 (Ky.2002) (insurance contract interpretation; liberal construction for insured)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Powell-Walton-Milward, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 223 (Ky.1994) (contract interpretations; ambiguity resolved in insured’s favor)
- Nolph v. Scott, 725 S.W.2d 860 (Ky.1987) (notice and tolling principles in equitable tolling context)
- Robertson v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 789 (Ky.2005) (equitable tolling when due diligence and prejudice considerations apply)
- Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21 (U.S.1990) (precedent on notice and tolling considerations)
- Nanny v. Smith, 260 S.W.3d 815 (Ky.2008) (equitable tolling after due diligence where timing obstructed by court process)
- Steadman v. Gentry, 314 S.W.3d 760 (Ky.App.2010) (limits tolling and timing when amendment is granted late)