Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Isaacs v. Sentinel Insurance Co., Ltd.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

February 2, 2018

DARRYL ISAACS; AND THERESA ISAACS APPELLANTS
v.
SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED D/B/A THE HARTFORD APPELLEE

         APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HON. AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 16-CI-000250

          Lee E. Sitlinger, Carolyn Ely Louisville, Kentucky BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS

          Lee E. Sitlinger ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANTS

          Douglas L. Hoots Lexington, Kentucky BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEE

          BEFORE: JONES, D. LAMBERT, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

          OPINION

          TAYLOR, JUDGE

         Darryl Isaacs and Theresa Isaacs bring this appeal from a January 24, 2017, Order of the Jefferson Circuit Court granting a motion for summary judgment filed by Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited d/b/a The Hartford, (Sentinel Insurance).[1] We affirm.

         Our recitation of the facts will only include those necessary for resolution of this appeal. On January 19, 2015, Darryl Isaacs was riding a bicycle on River Road in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Isaacs was struck on his bicycle by a motor vehicle operated by Michael Baumann. As a result of the accident, Isaacs alleges to have suffered numerous physical injuries.

         On January 15, 2016, and June 7, 2016, Isaacs and his wife, Theresa (collectively referred to as appellants) filed complaints against, inter alios, Baumann and Sentinel Insurance. Appellants asserted that Baumann negligently caused the accident on January 19, 2015, and that Baumann's motor vehicle insurance liability limits were insufficient to compensate Isaacs for his damages. Appellants alleged to be entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under a motor vehicle policy of insurance issued by Sentinel insurance to Isaacs & Isaacs, P.S.C.:

7. In accordance with KRS 304.39-320, Defendant[ ], Sentinel Insurance Company Limited d/b/a The Hartford, . . . have elected not to substitute their payment for the policy limits offered to Plaintiffs under Michael Baumann's automobile insurance policy and have authorized Plaintiff to accept said limits in settlement of their claims against Michael Baumann and releasing him from further liability herein. Plaintiffs are therefore seeking to recover underinsurance motorist coverage benefits pursuant to their policies of insurance issued by Defendant[ ], Sentinel Insurance Company Limited d/b/a The Hartford, pursuant to KRS 304.39-320 for their uncompensated damages.
. . . .
10. At all times herein mentioned Plaintiffs were insured under an additional policy of insurance issued by Defendant, Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, d/b/a The Hartford, which policy provides underinsured coverage to Plaintiffs in the amount of $3, 000, 000.00 for their uncompensated damages herein. Plaintiffs have made a demand for payment of said benefits from Defendant, Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, d/b/a The Hartford; however, Defendant, Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited, d/b/a The Hartford, has wrongfully denied coverage to Plaintiffs under its policy of insurance and has refused to pay them underinsured motorist coverage benefits to which they are entitled under the terms, conditions and provisions of their policy of insurance and Kentucky statutory and case law. Plaintiffs are therefore seeking underinsured motorist coverage benefits under said policy of insurance for their uncompensated damages in the amount of $3, 000, 000.00.

         June 7, 2016, Amended Complaint at 3-5. Appellants also claimed that Sentinel Insurance acted in bad faith when it denied UIM coverage for this accident.

         Thereafter, on June 30, 2016, appellants filed a motion for declaratory judgment; therein, appellants sought a declaration that Sentinel Insurance was legally obligated to provide UIM coverage to Isaacs. In particular, appellants acknowledged that the named insured on the motor vehicle insurance policy was Isaacs & Isaacs, P.S.C. and not Isaacs individually. However, appellants maintained that Isaacs & Isaacs, P.S.C. was essentially Isaacs as he was the "sole owner" of the P.S.C.[2] Thus, appellants argued that as the sole owner of the P.S.C. Isaacs was entitled to UIM coverage as a named insured in said policy.

         Sentinel Insurance subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Isaacs was not entitled to UIM coverage under the plain terms of the insurance policy. Sentinel Insurance pointed out that it issued a commercial motor vehicle insurance policy to Isaacs & Isaacs, P.S.C.; thereunder, the named insured was listed as Isaacs and Isaacs, P.S.C. Pursuant to the insurance policy, Sentinel Insurance ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.