Nicole T. McGuffey Administratrix of the Estate of Jonathan C. v. Ronald Hamilton, 2018 CA 001644

Background

On July 21, 2014 a tractor-trailer owned by Ronald Hamilton and driven by Jason Lamb began leaking oil after being serviced at Select Diesel; oil spilled onto North Broadway and a moped ridden by Jonathan McGuffey slipped on the oil, causing injuries that led to his death.
Nicole McGuffey (administratrix) sued Hamilton and Lamb for negligence and later added Select Diesel; she settled with Select Diesel and signed a release that included a broad hold-harmless/indemnity clause in Select Diesel’s favor.
Hamilton and Lamb moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) McGuffey lacked an expert to prove FMCSR violations (negligence per se) and (2) circular indemnity barred her claims because the release required her to indemnify Select Diesel against claims by Hamilton and Lamb.
The Fayette Circuit Court granted both summary judgments. The trial court concluded an expert was required to explain FMCSR violations and that Lamb and Hamilton were not in pari delicto with Select Diesel, so circular indemnity extinguished McGuffey’s claims against them.
The Court of Appeals reversed both grants of summary judgment, holding (a) an expert was not required to present FMCSR-based negligence claims in this non-professional negligence case and (b) the record did not establish as a matter of law that Select Diesel was primarily at fault (so indemnity / circular indemnity was not established).
The appellate court emphasized drivers’ and carriers’ heightened FMCSR duties, record evidence of safety-reporting gaps, and disputed causation—making allocation of fault a jury question rather than appropriate for summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony was required to prove FMCSR violations / negligence per se	Expert not required; jurors can assess FMCSR duties and causation in a non‑professional negligence case	Expert necessary because FMCSR technicalities are beyond jurors’ knowledge	Trial court abused discretion; expert not required; summary judgment on that ground reversed
Whether circular indemnity in plaintiff’s release with Select Diesel bars claims against Lamb and Hamilton	Release alone does not establish indemnity because factual fault allocation is unresolved	Release’s broad hold-harmless clause triggers circular indemnity and extinguishes claims	Reversed: record does not show as a matter of law that Lamb/Hamilton were not in pari delicto with Select Diesel; indemnity inappropriate at summary judgment
Whether Select Diesel was clearly primarily at fault (i.e., parties not in pari delicto)	There is a reasonable possibility Lamb/Hamilton share fault given FMCSR duties and factual gaps	Temporal proximity of servicing to leak shows Select Diesel caused the leak	Disputed factual issues exist; cannot resolve primary fault as matter of law; jury must decide
Whether summary judgment standard was met	Genuine issues of material fact remain; plaintiff could prevail at trial	Movants entitled to judgment as a matter of law	Summary judgment improper; both judgments reversed and case remanded

Key Cases Cited

Degener v. Hall Contracting Corp., 27 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2000) (recognizing survival of common-law indemnity post-comparative negligence)
In re El Paso Refinery, LP, 302 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2002) (articulating two requirements to invoke circular indemnity)
Brown Hotel Co. v. Pittsburgh Fuel Co., 224 S.W.2d 165 (Ky. 1949) (indemnity appropriate where one party’s negligence is plainly primary)
Crime Fighters Patrol v. Hiles, 740 S.W.2d 936 (Ky. 1987) (circular indemnity upheld where non-settling party clearly less culpable than tortfeasor)
Butt v. Independence Club Venture, Ltd., 453 S.W.3d 189 (Ky. App. 2014) (dram-shop statutory allocation can make indemnity appropriate)
York v. Petzl America, Inc., 353 S.W.3d 349 (Ky. App. 2010) (indemnity inappropriate at summary judgment where fault allocation among parties is uncertain)
Clark v. Hauck Mfg. Co., 910 S.W.2d 247 (Ky. 1995) (indemnity not an issue until fault is determined)
Caniff v. CSX Transp., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 368 (Ky. 2014) (expert testimony not required in non‑professional negligence/FELA context)
Stathers v. Garrard County Bd. of Educ., 405 S.W.3d 473 (Ky. App. 2012) (explaining limited scope of required expert testimony outside professional malpractice)