*1 Beach dispositive fact this case—Ms. con- test. was
sented the blood There abso-
lutely go beyond no this fact need Instead, majority
resolving this case. first, opinion holding, that the
has written an
provisions of the informed consent statute breached; that, second, if
had not been even breached, had been said grounds suppression for
breach
absence the violation of a constitutional third,
right; and there no constitutional was it had been
violation. Once determined that statutory provisions had not been breach-
ed, the other issues need not been
addressed. agree Appellant’s
I contention legislature impliedly expressed
preference testing breath its via county breathalyzer machines for each 189A.103(5); wording of KRS howev-
er, expression preference does not directive,
amount which is consistent majority’s holding. My
with the concern is opinion majority
that the breadth will challenge
make it to mount difficult to an
arbitrary punitive exercise of broad granted arresting
discretion officer in
requiring testing bodily excessive that is in-
trusive, when the less intrusive breath test-
ing is both to pre- available sufficient necessary
serve evidence for a conviction.
STEPHENS, C.J., joins opinion.
Angel LEWIS, minor, BY her next Joseph LEWIS,
friend J.
Appellant,
WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 95-SC-751-DG.
Supreme Kentucky. Court
Aug. *2 Thus, Reparations
Vehicle Act. the insur- liability coverage limits to the $25,000 statutory minimum where the in- jured person is the named insured or a mem- family, ber of a regardless named insured’s driving of who is the automobile. injuries Angel required sustained in- Joseph Schulte, M. Covington, Appel- tensive medical care. Her expenses medical lant. $50,000. approach requested date She payment $100,- liability policy limits of Arnzen, Futscher, Mark G. David A. Arn- 000, but request West American denied the zen, Parry Wentz, PSC, Covington, & claiming family exclusion clause limited Appellee. $25,000. recovery her Angel declaratory Lewis filed an action for KING, Justice. judgment challenging validity of the fam- The issue before the Court is the ily Campbell exclusion clause. The Circuit validity “family” or “household exclusion” Court, Fulton, relying Ky.App., Staser liability poli contained insurance summary entered cies. Such exclusions limit the insurance judgment upholding the exclusion. On re- coverage person’s injuries available for a Appeals view the Court of found merit solely on the basis of party’s argument exclusion clauses are status as a policyholder’s member of the but, decisis, feeling by outmoded bound stare family. findWe that such an exclusion to affirmed the trial court. insurance coverage is deleterious to our com munity repugnant interests and is to the A COLLUSION AS BASIS FOR public policy of our Commonwealth. Accord TORT IMMUNITY ingly, we hold that exclusions to liabil ity policies insurance are invalid and unen The rationale behind exclusions is to forceable. protect companies possi- from the bility colluding to obtain Lewis, Angel old, nine-year pas- was a greater compensation for an injured^ senger in operated an automobile owned and person rightfully member than that deserves. mother, by her Loretta Lewis. The vehicle This same pas- reason was the basis for the was involved in a collision with a tractor- sage “guest statutes” imple- as well as the trailer, and Angel Loretta Lewis was killed. spousal mentation of the doctrines of immu- permanent injuries suffered serious and in- nity parent-child immunity. holding In cluding damage. brain invalid, we from, experiences The Lewis automobile draw was insured learned in, West American Company. past Insurance Al- articulated our deci- though policy provides liability coverage rejecting possibility sions of collusion $100,000 $300,000 accident, per person, per deny few as valid reason to benefits to an amendatory it contains an endorsement enti- possibility entire innocent class. Just Policy tled “Amendment of Provisions —Ken- justify fraud and collusion a few did not tucky”. immunities, amendments include a the continuation of other it like- specifically liability exclusion which limits justify wise does coverage “bodily injury” available for any family
named or insured member of the GUEST STATUTES coverage named insured. The is limited to 1920’s, Beginning
the minimum legislatures state statutorily required by began enacting “guest” Motor statutes. These stat- passengers majority of automobile operators au- the vast typically provided that utes legiti- injuries guest honestly seeking relief for were not liable for who were tomobiles statutes, injuries. abrogating guest were passengers unless the inten- mate or, by tionally caused the terms some to allow legislatures courts decided statutes, by gross willful fraudu- fact-finder, jury, were caused ferret out *3 generally “are negligence. Guest statutes arbitrarily punishing than lent claims rather of acknowledged to have been result the innocent.
persistent
lobbying
part
and effective
IMMUNITY
INTERSPOUSAL
companies.”
Page
of
W.
al.,
et
and Keeton on the
Keeton
Prosser
immunity,
legal doctrine
Interspousal
(5th
1984).
Torts,
34, p.
Sec.
ed.
Law
spouse
asserting
prevented one
from
of
justifications proffered for these statutes
The
other, originally was
legal
claim
protection
hospitality
were the
unity
legal fiction of the
based on the
prevention of collusion
hosts and
between
coupled
person’s
husband and wife
with
guests.
Id.
inability
him or
In the mid-
to sue
herself.
began
century,
legislatures
state
nineteenth
Kentucky
in 1930.
guest
enacted a
statute
Property
enacting Married Women’s
Acts.
85,
Ky. Acts
12-7. This statute
Sec.
married
giving
These
aimed at
Acts were
promptly ruled unconstitutional for vio-
was
legal identity. Courts
separate
women a
14, 54,
241 of the
lating sections
Ken-
generally interpreted
as
these statutes
Johnson,
Ludwig
tucky
Constitution.
allowing
property
spouse
one
enforce
(1932).
Ky. 533,
Woods, Goodbye and Guest Good the determi- The Court based its decision on Riddance, 16 Cumb.L.Rev. 265-66 language nation of the Married that the abro- Act of 1894 necessitated Woman’s began guest courts stat When to examine interpret- gation. Previously the Court had utes, they determined that the reasons ad affecting ed the the common law Act as justify did not vanced for their existence changing circum- rule. found that The Court passen class of treatment of one differential on which stances had eliminated reasons gers. to eliminate “[I]t unreasonable rule was based and the common law persons class of of action of an entire causes abrogation immunity was more of the portion simply some undefined because thought. Id. at keeping modern class fraudulent law designated file Merlo, Brown 8 Cal.3d suits.” that relax- addressed the fear Court 388, 402, Cal.Rptr. 506 P.2d immunity door open would ation Although guest might prevent a few statutes claims, especially against insur- suits, fraudulent most courts determined that collusive negative penalize companies: greater effect was willing We are not to admit that the courts S.W.2d 70 The court determined ineffectual, jury are so system nor our light so “[i]n modern social and economic imperfect, conditions, that fraudulent claims cannot be longer the reasons for the rule no disposed detected and accordingly. justifications outweigh favoring its abro- opportunity many There is an gation.” Rigdon, for fraud in supra at 923. types courts, of claims which reach the justify denying does not right FAMILY EXCLUSIONS
maintain those which have merit.
passage
has witnessed the
of a
Id. at 484.
guest
adoption
statute and the
interspous-
parental immunity.
al and
Each were initial-
More than two-thirds of the states have
*4
ly premised upon the belief that such action
similarly abrogated
spousal
the doctrine of
necessary
prevent
was
to
fraud and collusion.
Beattie,
immunity.
1096,
Beattie v.
630 A.2d
past
years
Over
Kentucky’s
the
60
highest
(Del.1993);
Waite,
1100
Waite v.
618 So.2d
repeatedly
has
held that such a reason
(Fla.1993).
1360, 1361
State after state has
justify
does
hardships
the
these immuni-
rejected
possibility
the
being
of collusion as
impose
citizenry.
ties
on our
deny
sufficient
to
reason
an entire class of
people
right
compensated
legiti-
for
With the
provid-
erosion of the immunities
injuries.
mate
protect
“[T]he need to
a vic-
by
ed
the doctrines of interspousal
pa-
tim wrongdoing
outweigh
come to
immunity,
rental
companies sought
insurance
maintaining
reasons for
immunity
rule.”
protect
by
inserting family
interests
Ashdown,
Gerald
Intrafamily
Immunity,
exclusions into their
insurance contracts.
Compensation,
Pure
Family
and the
Exclu-
Wagamon,
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Clause,
239,
sion
60 Iowa L.Rev.
242
557,
(Del.1988). However,
541 A.2d
for
PARENTAL IMMUNITY
compelling policy reasons courts have invali-
“[Cjourts
dated
exclusion clauses.
immunity
Parental
did not exist at common
have been forced to balance insurance com-
began
law.
in 1891
Mississippi
when the
pany
concerns about
legis-
collusion
Supreme Court,
authority,
-without citation to
lative
compensated,
mandate that victims be
determined that a child could not sue her
judicial policy
and a
which disfavors intra-
parents
imprisonment
for false
in an insane
family immunity.” Id.
asylum.
decision,
After
Mississippi
all
accepted
but seven states
the doctrine. The
policy
Under the West American
at issue
justifications
immunity
pro
were the
here, when an insured or member of the
peace
felicity
motion of domestic
passenger
insured’s
is a
in the in-
prevention
of fraud and collusion.
sured’s
through
vehicle and is
began
courts later
exceptions
to carve out
driver,
negligence of the
whether
or
related
immunity
and some courts
com
not,
the victim can recover
(Second)
pletely abrogated it. Restatement
$25,000,regardless
minimum of
Torts,
895G,
(1977);
b-j
sec.
cmts.
Broad
result,
limits. As a
an insurance
con-
Broadbent,
74, 76-77,
bent v.
184 Ariz.
907 taining
prevents
specific
such a clause
class
P.2d
45-46
receiving adequate
innocent victims from
protection.
financial
This exclusion is entire-
immunity
Parental
by
from tort
actions
ly
person’s
status as mem-
child has been
Kentucky,
abandoned in
ex
family.
ber of the named insured’s
Without
cept
negligent
where the
act at issue involves
basis, every
documentation or factual
mem-
either the
parental
“reasonable exercise of
high
ber of this excluded class is labeled
risk
authority”
ordinary
or “the
paren
exercise of
being
likely
engage
and branded as
more
respect
tal discretion with
in collusion and fraud.
Rig
care and necessities of the child.”
Rigdon, Ky.,
don
particularly
This exclusion becomes
dis-
also,
Horn, Ky.,
turbing
See
Horn v.
light
when viewed in
of the fact
upon logic or
uniformly
nor based
available
class
victims is the one most
that this
people
insurance
equity. Many
denied
exposed
potential negli-
frequently
have no
Typical
children who
fami-
are innocent
gence of the named insured.
they are
say
ride
vehicle
which
require
members to
about
ly relations
work, church,
vehicle,
manner
or the
placed,
on the
who drives
together
way,
Furthermore,
functions,
school,
family outings.
is driven.
social
which the vehicle
years, many
method
cases
Consequently,
practical
there is no
their tender
because of
persons
excluded
De-
they
incapable
which
class
of fraud or collusion.
considerations,
protection by
provision may con-
spite these
expo-
as to
protection provid-
form their activities so
avoid
full
deny
them the
riding
sure to
risk of
someone
policies.
ed
who,
them,
uninsured.
largely
policies are
motor-vehicle
Because
Wiscomb,
Mutual
Enumclaw Ins. Co.
adhesion,
practical
there is no
contracts of
P.2d
97 Wash.2d
per-
method
the class of excluded
exposure
Lia-
such
to risk.
sons
avoid
uphold
exclusion would re-
To
bility
coverage is “offered to
ineq-
socially
perpetuating
destructive
sult
essentially
a ‘take
consumer
ordinary
examples
activities
Three
uities.
*5
affording the con-
or leave it’ basis without
inequities.
these
illustrate
bargain” or
opportunity
sumer
realistic
First, every day in our Commonwealth
Casualty
negotiate.
v. Bituminous
Jones
participate
pools
in car
parents
and drive
Corp., Ky.,
S.W.2d
neighbor’s
children
their
children
their
and
Therefore,
subject, often
the consumer is
school, social, and recreational events.
any provision
warning, to
the insurer
without
However,
parents’ negligence
in
if
results
in the
In the
wish to include
equally
seriously
an automobile
collision
clause,
the-family exclusion
courts
instance of
only
injuring
passengers,
neighbor’s
all
rejected
reasons for
exclusion
poli-
fully compensated.
children can be
variety
of instances.
wide
children,
severity
cy
despite
holders’
their
limited to the minimum
EXPECTATIONS
REASONABLE
coverage.
mandated insurance
liability insurance
purchase
Consumers
Second,
couples
when two married
drive
coverage
mandatory
amounts
in excess
injured
and all are
dinner
driver’s car
personal,
required by law out of a sense of
negligence,
driver’s
driver’s
By pur-
responsibility.
financial and social
protected by the full
friends are
amount
limits,
chasing higher
coverage but not
the driver’s
compensate
provides a method to
insured
operates
spouse.
If one of the friends
injured
a result
the insured’s
those
automobile,
spouse is provided
the friend’s
endangering
financial
negligence
without
protection,
full insurance
the owner
security
by years of
Pur-
hard work.
earned
spouse.
or owner’s
expect
chasers of automobile insurance
pro-
Third,
comparable
to receive
neighbor-
two
commonplace
it is
afforded to unknown third
tection to that
families to
to a common destina-
hood
drive
Family
these
persons.
exclusions defeat
from both families
tion with
children
coverage
Unfortunately,
goals
if
and render
intermingled
cars.
both
most
collide,
illusory
persons the insured
only
for those
negligently
those chil-
the cars
persons
who are also the
happen
riding
protect,
desires to
who
to be
with their
dren
passengers in the insured’s
fully compensated.
likely
most
neighbor can be
vehicle,
loved ones.
the insured’s
examples
These
illustrate
undeniable
exclusions,
strongly
to a
that,
This
adhered
insur-
fact
because of
expectations
Kentucky
protecting
the reasonable
protection
families is not
ance
Jones,
policyholders.
supra; Continental
legitimate probability
those instances when a
Freeman, Ky.,
Cos.
v.Co.
of collusion exists.” Id. at 757.
Co.,
In Hamilton v. Allstate Ins.
prohibited
the exclusion at issue there
claims
Ky.,
(1990),
purpose of insurance. injured erates to bar all valid claims of fam- ily preclude members in order to possi- Id. at 757. Just as the exclusions Hamil- bility of collusion. We cannot lock our ton coverage, created illusive Chaffin Commonwealth’s courthouse doors to the also result in illu- many who are and maimed because coverage. sive suspicion of a that a few members of this Although “insurance carriers have the might exaggerated class advance claim. *6 right impose to reasonable” limitations on inadequate justifi- The fear of collusion is coverage, their question “the then becomes cation for the existence of the exclu- the reasonableness of the condition a limi- as cases, sion. in per- As earlier we are not opposed tation on as to one of system justice that incapable suaded our strict contract pri- considerations between detecting disposing and of fraudulent parties vate where no interest is in- array claims. An insurance carrier has an Jones, supra volved.” at 802. As West techniques to test both the truthfulness and argument, American conceded at oral no car- accuracy provided by of the information rier is entitled to an write Furthermore, system jus- claimant. our arbitrary exclusions, provision with such as a safeguards tice has sufficient institutional in excluding people all red-haired from cover- place perpe- to ferret out one who seeks to age. legal system. trate a fraud on our We find According American, to West the sole ba- nothing unique brought by so about claims sis for the exclusion is to allow insur- ability that members would hinder the companies ance to continue to offer reason- judicial system any possible of our to address ably priced policies ability abuse. coverage “high to exclude from risk collusive Without fraud collusion as a basis for Chaffin, claims.” In company the insurance exclusion, there is no reason to that contended the exclusion at issue was exclude members from the full bene- “one of the few means available to an insur- policy. fits of a ance prevent carrier collusive suits.” Chaffin, supra again, at 756. Once we found argument
that the collusion “had little mer- FAMILY AND EXCLUSIONS it.” Id. PUBLIC POLICY Chaffin, In might Bishop we determined that it In be v. Allstate Ins. appropriate step to draft narrow exclusions “in we took the first adaptation in the law was determining The need for family exclusion toward our Re- family fully recognized founders of We found that violate have read of Americans public. Generations completely exclud- exclusion in words the Jeffer- pride enshrined extent liability coverage was invalid to the ed a letter Thom- and taken from son Memorial minimum tort it or eliminated the diluted Kercheval wrote Samuel as Jefferson required by We came liability coverage law. part: in inscription reads July Motor Vehicle to this conclusion because the of tort payment Act mandates Reparations changes frequent an advocate for I am not property personal constitutions, laws and in laws Prior damage. enactment go in hand with the must hand institutions MVRA, provi- upheld family we As that of the human mind. progress “However, in insurance contracts. sions enlight- developed, more more becomes legislature policy behind stated the when made, ened, new new as discoveries requirements it and set’forth its the MVRA opin- discovered and manners truths specified minimum cover- no exclusions from change circum- change, with the ions age.” Bishop at 866. not have be- We did stances, also institutions must advance us, address, validity we nor did fore keep pace with times. affecting liability coverage in ex- statutory minimum. cess of the un- years have had fifteen to function We Bishop rule in which held even der the Bishop in Appeals extended Court entitled of the insured were Fulton, Ky.App., 684 S.W.2d Staser statutory coverage. We the minimum Staser, Bishop, the insur- to, seen, any nor been directed liability cov- policy completely excluded that there an increase in evidence has been erage any insured or member. Un- by family members since claims collusive Staser, Bishop, the limits in were like experience, In view of this Bishop. statutory minimum. The excess of family mem- unreasonable surmise Appeals that the MVRA Court of determined presentation collusive in bers will be preclude application exclu- does not statutory minimum. claims above policies written sion automobile mínimums and excess of the tendency “has a direct If a contract *7 only the extent voided the exclusion enforced, injuri to, upheld if and and would statutory it minimum cover- eliminated part of ously a material and substantial affect age. it will declared to be one public, be generally non against public and most Court, recognize before We Ashland, City Forbes 246 v. enforceable.” MVRA, validity upheld enactment of the 669, 917, We hold Ky. 55 S.W.2d 919 of the exclusion clause contained such an effect exclusions have liability contracts. Third National public against are and Au- Farm Mutual Bank Ashland State Co., Ky., Ins. 261 tomobile long recognized that: It has been policy is and fixed. not static fully capable public policy must be looked dynamic, It flexible and is findings in and and the decisions new and statutes adapting to situations Constitution state, of a our to better the courts last resort permit institutions order prohibition of poli- legislative is no of our citizens. “Public where there serve the needs agreement before a cy character of quantity. variable It varies with a certain is a void, it habits, to declare capacities, opportunities court is authorized agreement or change, appear that public. changes laws must such It often as the pub- tendency injure the applications princi- has a new of old contract and therefore against public good, or is Ry. lic is ples required.” v. Louisville Chreste Co., contrary policy.... to sound Ky. S.W. City Light Princeton Princeton Elec. summary judgment & versed. The entered Ky.
Power 179 S.W. 1078 against Angel Lewis is set aside and the matter Campbell remanded to the Circuit Court.
Because neither our Constitution or stat- family exclusions,
utes address turn we KING, STUMBO and the decisions of this court to determine the WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., public policy of our concur. Commonwealth. The fair compensation received inno- LAMBERT, J., only by concurs in result negligence cent victims of another’s is the GRAVES, separate opinion J., joining with controlling policy underlying consideration that concurrence. abrogation intrafamily both our immuni- ties expecta- and the doctrine of reasonable STEPHENS, C.J., by separate dissents Family injurious tions. exclusions are to a J., opinion BAKER, joining with that dissent. segment substantial of the citizens of our They deny injured persons Commonwealth. BAKER, J., by separate opinion dissents ability rely upon the insurance cover- STEPHENS, C.J., joining that dissent. age purchased by policyholder. As a result, seriously accident victims will LAMBERT, Justice, concurring in result hardship suffer financial if exclusion only. every clauses are validated. Almost member potentially a member of this rationale advanced in favor overly excluded class. The exclusion is upholding family exclusion on sums exceed broad, surmise, ing prevent minimum is to public good. possibility by family of collusion members to companies. simply defraud insurance This is logical is time for us to take the next an insufficient basis to sustain the exclusion. step Thus, Bishop. we hold that Gosser, Long ago in Brown v. provisions exclusion insurance con- forcefully S.W.2d 480 we declared tracts violate the of this Com- that the courts of this Commonwealth are not monwealth and are unenforceable. Accord- Staser, so ineffectual as to ingly, supra, be unable detect fraud and other cases which uphold in such validity circumstances. exclusion are overruled. foregoing acknowledged, When the only other reason for the exclusion is to limit Having found the the amount of insurance underwrit- public policy, violates we hold the words, application ten. other of a offending separable clause is from the re circumstances these such as maining contractual and the bal $100,000 reducing the effect of to a *8 ance of the insurance contract is enforceable. $25,000 view, my policy. In such a reduction very principle It is a well established that may accomplished not be this manner. In where a contract contains valid and invalid general, when an insurance carrier writes a conditions, good may or be $100,000policy, required it fur- should be to separated affecting from the bad without coverage nish that amount of unless sustaina- whole, integrity the of the contract as a the public policy ble authorizes a different result. part may unlawful of the contract be elimi- Kentucky See v. Farm Bureau Ins. Chaffin upheld. nated and the balance of it (1990). Co., Ky., 789 S.W.2d 757-58 Accident, F. L. Corp. General & Assur. v. of purchasing One the motivations for lia- Co., Ky. Louisville H.T. 175 193 S.W. bility exceeding insurance in sums that which (1917). 1031 required by provide is law is to funds to opinion, compensate For the reasons contained this those whom a tortfeasor course, Appeals injure. the catastrophically decision of the Court of is re- such a Of
837
view,
just
a
purchase
protecting
my
the
In
this is
such
case
also has
benefit of
existing
the
tortfeasor’s
to
of available
calls
a modification of the
rule.
assets
extent
for
justification
coverage.
To one who is motivat-
for an
Collusion as
compensate
by a
to
those whom he
to be
ed
desire
has
denounced and determined
been
injure,
justi-
may negligently
policy
demonstrably
false.
this invalid
Wh'en
coverage
accompanied by
minimum
an affirmative
which reduces to the
for
fication is
members,
enough
misleading,
are at
there is
to invali-
his
those who
once
reason
likely
injured by
provision.
date
policy
most
to be
the tortfeasor’s
him,
negligence
to
and dearest
is
absolute
However, I would reach a different result
However, by
of
contradiction.
virtue
if the
carrier could show that
selling
products
packaging and
pur-
knowingly determined to
insured had
limit,
greater
providing
pur-
as
liability coverage
chase
claims
less
for
believing
into
that
chasers
misled
brought
than for claims
higher
applies
they may
limit
to all whom
brought
strangers.
legitimate
For
under-
injure
applies only
it
strang-
when in fact
writing
could made
reasons
distinction
be
ambiguity
ers.
Whether
doctrine
parties
distinguish
would
be entitled
expectations,
reasonable
such
contract
claimants, provided,
potential
between
must be reformed.
course,
sat-
minimum was
majority
opinion
by Bishop
as
v.
required
characterizes its
is
isfied
to all
as
Co.,
step”
Bishop
Ky.,
v.
logical
“the next
All
Allstate Insurance
S.W.2d
Co.,
Ky.,
state Insurance
ruled
and I believe that it should
GRAVES, J., joins
concurring opinion.
this
In Bishop,
so.
we held that a
exclu
public policy
clause
sion
violated
due to its
STEPHENS,
Justice, dissenting.
Chief
conflict with the mandate of the General
opinion extremely
Although
majority
Assembly
tort
to secure minimum
persuasive,
well
I
dissent
written
must
coverage.
logical
A
from what
inference
First, I
not
it is
for two reasons.
do
believe
say
Bishop
surely implied
not
did
prerogative
public
Court to
set
denying
is that
exclusions
for
Secondly, I
Commonwealth.
all amounts in excess
the minimum cover
prudent
not
do
overrule
believe
age
contrary
public
are not
policy. Staser
Bishop
v. Allstate Ins.
decisions
Fulton,
Ky.App.,
I
S.W.2d
Fulton,
should be question There is no that the doctrine of THOMAS, Respondent. Robert Dale stare decisis has often been overcome when this Court “theory supporting finds No. 96-SC-237-KB. grounded facts, a rule of law is not logic, unjust, sound or is or has been Supreme Kentucky. Court of discredited experience.” actual D & W Revenue, Supply Department Auto Aug. 602 S.W.2d While the ma jority opinion eloquent maintaining
variety why of reasons fall,
should I do not find that the above- Therefore,
mentioned criteria has been met.
I Bishop, would not supra, overrule or Sta
ser, supra.
BAKER, J., joins dissenting opinion.
BAKER, Justice, dissenting. join
I dissenting Chief Justice his
opinion. As a matter of
majority This, compelling states a case.
however, is a decision for the General Assem-
bly, people whom the choose determine
public policy. proper respect With for the
separation powers which delineate the
roles of Assembly the General and the Court Justice, this Court should not intervene.
As stated in Fann v. McGuffey, Ky., 534 elementary
It is legislative that the branch government prerogative has the of de-
claring public policy and that the mere AND OPINION ORDER respect wisdom of its choice is not subject judgment of a court. Robert Dale Thomas of Harlan has been guilty unprofessional
found of unethical and STEPHENS, C.J., joins conduct the Board of Governors of the dissent.
Kentucky Bar Association because he failed complete ancillary administration of an diligence estate with reasonable and failed to keep reasonably a client as to informed status of the matter entrusted to him. lawyer The conduct of the was in violation 3.130-1.3, provides that a SCR law- yer diligence act shall with reasonable promptness in representing a client and SCR