399 S.W.3d 425
Ky.2013Background
- Crum, a pedestrian, was injured when struck by a vehicle driven by Ousley on a Kentucky road; the vehicle was owned by Rhonda Ward and uninsured.
- Ousley was operating the vehicle under Ward’s policy with Kentucky Farm Bureau (KFB), which provided BRBs and PIP and extended liability to Ousley for the vehicle.
- Crum sued Ousley and later joined KFB for no-fault BRBs; the trial court bifurcated tort and coverage issues and awarded $25,000 liability from a single policy.
- The trial court later held KFB must pay BRBs to Crum under MVRA and the policy terms, despite an uninsured vehicle and Crum not being an insured under the policy.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Crum could not recover BRBs from KFB and could seek BRBs through the Assigned Claims Plan; it found Ousley’s policy excluded Crum.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a pedestrian injured by an uninsured vehicle driven by an insured can recover BRBs from the driver’s insurer, and reversed, holding Crum entitled to BRBs under Ousley’s policy; remand on assigned claims plan issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pedestrian can recover BRBs from the driver's insurer when the vehicle is uninsured but driven by an insured. | Crum contends the MVRA and policy language require BRBs from the insurer on any insured vehicle's use. | KFB argues the uninsured vehicle means no BRBs from the driver’s policy and that recovery should come from the Assigned Claims Plan. | Yes; the pedestrian may recover BRBs from the driver's insurer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc. v. Linn Station Properties, LLC, 360 S.W.3d 152 (Ky.2012) (context for statutory interpretation and remedies)
- Cosby v. Commonwealth, 147 S.W.3d 56 (Ky.2004) (principles on public policy and remedial statutes)
- Commonwealth v. Rosenfield Bros. & Co., 80 S.W. 1178 (Ky.1904) (early interpretation of remedial statutes)
- Roy v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co., 954 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1992) (application of BRB/UM concepts across circuits)
- Capital Enterprise Ins. Co. v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 804 S.W.2d 377 (Ky.App.1991) (insurer duties and coverage interpretation)
- Manis (Commonwealth Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Manis), 549 S.W.2d 303 (Ky.App.1977) (uninsured motorist coverage implications)