2020 CA 000680
Ky. Ct. App.Sep 2, 2021Background
- On April 16, 2016 Kristina Bratcher was injured as a passenger on a motorcycle and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under three State Farm policies issued to her parents, Don and Tina Bratcher.
- The policies’ Declarations Page lists the named insured as “Bratcher, Don & Tina L,” and the policy defines a “resident relative” as a person who “resides primarily with the first person shown as a named insured on the Declarations Page.”
- Kristina lived at 107 Forest Court (a rental owned by her parents) since 2001; Tina moved in with Kristina around March 2016 for a period the parties dispute.
- Kristina is not a named insured and contends she is covered only if she is a “resident relative” of the first-named insured; State Farm argued she did not qualify because Don was the first-named insured.
- The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment for State Farm, concluding Don was the “first person shown” because his name appears before Tina’s; Kristina appealed.
- The Court of Appeals held the Declarations Page is ambiguous as to who is the first-named insured (treating Don and Tina as joint/first-named), reversed summary judgment, and remanded because genuine factual disputes exist about whether Kristina resided primarily with Tina.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Declarations Page unambiguously identifies a single “first person shown as a named insured” | The listing “Bratcher, Don & Tina L” is ambiguous; State Farm intended no preference and thus both spouses should be treated as first-named | Don’s name precedes Tina’s; that ordering makes Don the first-named insured | Declarations Page is ambiguous; both Don and Tina treated as first-named insureds |
| Whether Kristina qualifies as a “resident relative” under the policy | Kristina lived with Tina at the time of the accident and thus may be a resident relative of a first-named insured | Kristina did not reside primarily with the first-named insured and so is excluded | Whether Kristina “resided primarily” with Tina is a disputed factual issue for trial; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | SJ inappropriate because ambiguity and factual disputes remain | SJ appropriate because Don is first-named and Kristina not residing with him | Summary judgment reversed and case remanded for factual determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson ex rel. Trent v. Nat’l Feeding Sys., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 46 (Kentucky 2002) (standard for summary judgment)
- Isaacs v. Sentinal Ins. Co. Ltd., 607 S.W.3d 678 (Kentucky 2020) (insurance contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKinney, 831 S.W.2d 164 (Ky. 1992) (ambiguities resolved for insured; exclusions strictly construed)
- Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. App. 2002) (definition of contract ambiguity)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Queen, 685 P.2d 935 (Mont. 1984) (similar-policy ambiguity when spouses listed together)
- Perry v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 860 S.W.2d 762 (Ky. 1993) (residency and intent are questions of fact)
- Marshall v. Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 618 S.W.3d 499 (Ky. App. 2020) (application of contract definitions to conduct is factual)