*1 Thus, rеstraining I see no ues be sold. gas purchase provision.
effect of the lead me to dis-
The considerations above I majority opinion.
sent from the trial ex-
affirm grounds jurisdictional
cept to on reverse damages. period time recoverable HOMES, INC., MOBILE
HOME FOLKS Berry, Appellants, and Nanette Thacker, Thacker, Bickel, George John Bickel, Hodskins, Thacker, Wetzel & Ow- ensboro, appellants. MERIDIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE Lee, McCarroll, Stephen Nunley B. COMPANY, Appellee. Owensboro, Hartz, appellеe. No. 86-CA-2611-MR. McDONALD and WILHOIT, JJ. 9, Oct. 1987. McDONALD, Judge: As Corrected on Denial Rehearing Dec. 1987. appellants, Home Folks Mobile corрoration solely owned Discretionary by Supreme Review Denied Berry, Berry, Nanette Rich- Richard Court Feb. appеaled daughter, ard’s from judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court appellee, In- favor of the Meridian Mutual Company. Berry Nanette was July, volved in an accident by someone other than driving a car owned Meridian filed this herself or her father. deсlaratory judgment action determine policy it had issued to Home whether the Homes, Inc., afforded Folks caused coverage for alleged negligence Nanette and whether in the suits duty to defend Nanette had a filed her. Auto at а Business issue was dispute There is premium coverage and that a of those the nonbusiness use paid page. declaration specified on the
vehicles sought that he testified Richard his both Baize, Meridi- Bobby family. business and his *2 in- clusion of the endоrsement the Berry indicated conversation with en- its terms would never have coverage.” Several which own “full deed wanted policy, Generally, ambiguities in in- appended any to the effect. dorsements were contracts, which, provided per- example, policies, as other two of with uninsured mo- the drafter. Wol injury protection sonal construеd insists, how- Meridian Wolford, Ky., 662 S.W.2d torists insurance. 835 v. ford coverage Nan- ever, provided it Mutual Insur that State Automobile (1984); accident, is, coverage commonly Ellis, Ky.App., 700 S.W. ette’s that Company v. ance coverage, and as “drive other car” knоwn (1985). CA 99 801 Meridian insists that 2d use of only to the that its extended language 17 does not contain on the decla- listed specific the automobiles we be an Nevertheless creates other policy. of the “Drive ration sheet ambiguity simply by arisen an lieve coverage ordinarily come with car” en the insurer’s inclusion the virtue of sepa- bought family policy if Merid in thе In its brief dorsement rately. endorsement was includ ian states that the stated in the exactly “for the reason argue they еnti- ed that were appellants itself, change policy if to the issue of endorsement summary judgment on the tled to as the insured was an individual inclusion of the named coverage of the because endorsement, explana This opрosed corporation.” to a 99 17. This endorsement CA others, large, bold insurance carrier headed in is nonsensicаl as the the is tion like in following: obviously “THIS EN- that the named the aware print with corpora THE POLICY. not an individual but CHANGES sured was DORSEMENT rea simply It is offered no READ IT CAREFULLY.” tion. Meridian has PLEASE including son, any, IN- NAMED can we think of “INDIVIDUAL nor entitled provide it was to begins: the endorsement unless SURED” and request coverage as expanded personal the individual, the is you If are an Supreme Court As the by the insured. ed changеd ... as follows: Co., Ins. Simon Continental noted LIABILITY INSUR- IN B. CHANGES “ (1987), do Ky., 724 S.W.2d [w]e ANCE parties, the accept as a fact that not faith, bargain for insur to good intended AUTO COVERAGE 2. PERSONAL Thus, as the paid no benefits.” ance that private you own of the any auto While explicitly sets out еndorsement auto under type is a covered passenger as the endorse “changes” policy, the LIABILITY INSURANCE: the coverage car” “drive other provides ment the policy, in the not elsewhere is a cover- you don’t own en autо reasonably expect b. insured could by you or being used such cover ed auto to extend was meant dorsement еxcept: Berry family. The any family member age members of is expectations” of reasonable not “doctrine еxceptions follow which are [four Simon, appropriate one, explained in emphasis our appliсable; own.] Id., p. 213. ambiguities. resolving such Me- summary judgment for granting In Liability Long, The Law 1A R. See the en- ridian, court concluded the trial (1987). Insurаnce § 5.12 it, in this case as apply not dorsement did pro- language,” Circuit unequivocal the Daviess in “clear and further сoverage only additional remanded vided the is reversed and individual; complaint. named and the an on the merits proceedings insured was insured, Home Folks cor- but a “business individual was not an J., concurs. poration.” J., WILHOIT, in result however, concurs dеtermination, The trial court’s opinion. separate files a ambiguity created overlooks the WILHOIT, Judge, concurring. result reached
I concur in the the evidence
majority I believe as because an of material there is issue
now stands with parties intent
fact as coverage. The car”
respect to “drive other pat- for this is
endorsement *3 but, pointed
ently ambiguous out
majority, the circumstances as a whole
indicative of a latent Ewald, Wyatt, C. Tarrant
Robert Combs, Louisville, appellant. COUNTY BOARD OF JEFFERSON Louisville, Peabody, for Miller. John C. EDUCATION, Appellant, Burnham, Cabinet, A. Labor Steven Louisville, Special Fund. MILLER, Fund, Special Ethel Maе Compensation Workers’ sitting en full court Board, Appellees. banc. No. 88-CA-203-I. PER CURIAM. Appeals of attempted apрeal Appellant has this opinion Feb. from an Appeals of the Court Compensa- entered the Workers’
award 21, 1987. The on December tion Board of question raised Court has itself Appeals jurisdic- has whether appeal. The Court tion to entertain this it does determined must appeal that the jurisdiction and have dismissed. be Bill 1 of House enactment Extraordinary Legislative Session proce sweeping made substantive changes Kentucky’s com workers’ dural procеdural All sections pensation law. here became effec we must consider January 4, 1988. tive prior to Jan- effect Under statutes a work- uary the initial decision was made compensation case ers’ Compensation Workers’ fivе-member a decision aggrieved by party Board. circuit appeal to the that Board could try jurisdiction to “that would damages for the an action notes agent, testified that an’s