Don A. Pisacano joined the firm in 2006. Don is a 1990 graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Law and concentrates his practice in the areas of civil litigation, with an emphasis on personal injury, tort litigation, insurance defense, and commercial litigation. Don leads the MGM Insurance Defense team and he has represented a dozen national insurers over the entire Commonwealth of Kentucky in his 25 years of practice. His representative matters include defense of personal injury lawsuits, extracontractual (”bad faith”) claims, defense of homeowners’ claims and coverage issues (including fraud and misrepresentation, windstorm, hail, roofing, arson, building and design defects, vandalism, gas explosions), forklift and tractor injuries, subsidence, mortgage/foreclosure, cattle losses and premises liability claims. He has an AV rating (Preeminent) by the Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Review Service.
Ortiz v. Kentucky Growers Insurance Company (Muhlenberg Circuit Court Action 15-CI-00364)
On February 6, 2017, the insurance defense practice group, led by Don Pisacano, obtained a summary judgment for its client, Kentucky Growers Insurance Company, in Ortiz v. Kentucky Growers Insurance Company. The plaintiffs sought to recover under their homeowners’ policy for a fire loss. However, they misrepresented their ownership interest in the insurance application, as well as the existence of a previous foreclosure and previous cancellation from another insurer, all of which rendered the policy void ab initio. Read the court’s order dismissing KY Growers and order as to other defendants.February 6, 2017 Filed Under: Litigation Insurance Defense
Caldwell v. Fussinger (14-CI-11, Bourbon Circuit Court)
Don Pisacano successfully tried a Landlord Tenant case in Bourbon County Circuit Court and obtained a defense verdict for the farm owner/landlord in a premises liability personal injury claim arising from a trip and fall on an alleged defective cattle guard. Plaintiff was seeking damages for a fractured ankle and subsequent infection (osteomyelitis) that occurred when he fell into/on an open and obvious cattle guard. The jury found for the landowner and the Plaintiff was awarded nothing. See a copy of the Jury Verdict.January 3, 2017 Filed Under: Litigation Transactional Law Insurance Defense
Papastefanou v. Kentucky Growers, et al (13-CI-1440, Warren Circuit Court)
On behalf of Kentucky Growers Insurance, Don Pisacano obtained summary judgment against a national mortgage company’s claim for proceeds arising from a foreclosure action and subsequent fire loss. See the November 23, 2016 Order in Papastefanou v. Kentucky Growers, et al.November 23, 2016 Filed Under: Litigation Transactional Law Insurance Defense
Goodlett v. Danville Eye Center, PLLC, et al., Boyle Circuit Court, 14-CI-314, May 14, 2015
Successfully resolved a lawsuit brought against an engineering firm regarding premises liability and alleged claims of defective construction. Read more ›May 14, 2015 Filed Under: Litigation Insurance Defense
Papastefanou v. Kentucky Growers Insurance Company, et al, Warren Circuit, 13-CI-1440 May 4, 2015
Successfully defended a claim against a Kentucky insurer under a homeowners’ policy exclusion related to foreclosure. Read more ›May 4, 2015 Filed Under: Litigation Insurance Defense
Charles T. Creech, Inc. v. Brown and Standlee, 433 S.W.2d 345 (Ky. 2014) (2012-SC-651-DG) (2011-CA-629)(09-CI-779) Fayette Circuit Court
In a case that traversed from trial court, to court of appeals, back to the trial court, back to the court of appeals and then to supreme court, Kentucky’s highest court changed the law on noncompetition agreements and the consideration required for an enforceable restrictive covenant. Company sued former employee and his new employer to enforce a noncompete executed by employee after many years of service and without any additional compensation or consideration to the employee. After several hearings the trial court granted injunctive relief and applied the “blue pencil” doctrine to insert a reasonable area limitation on the noncompete ruling that the former employee could not act in violation of the contract. Read the trial court’s ruling and temporary injunction.
Former employee and his new employer then pursued emergency relief at the Court of Appeals under CR 65.07. The Court of Appeals dissolved the injunction on the emergency appeal. Read the CR 65.07 order dissolving the temporary injunction. The supreme court declined review as to the interlocutory rulings. The case was then remanded to the trial court to address the merits of the case without any injunctive relief being in place and the trial court granted Former Employee summary judgment and dismissed the balance of the Company’s case for protection based on the wording of the appellate court’s order.
Company then appealed and on full review the Court of Appeals agreed that the Company’s claims should not have been dismissed but significantly limited its damage claim and created a new “test” for enforceability of noncompetes. See the Opinion of the Court of Appeals
Company moved for discretionary review which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then used the case as a first review by the high court to consider noncompetes and held that 50+ years of law in Kentucky providing that continued employment is adequate consideration to enforce a noncompete is no longer applicable. They held that the noncompete in issue was unenforceable due to lack of consideration while also holding that the “blue pencil” doctrine is not available in Kentucky. See the Opinion of the Kentucky Supreme Court
Noncompete/restrictive covenant/employment/consideration/CR 65 relief/blue pencil doctrine/issues on review/damages/adequate consideration/unenforceable
June 19, 2014 Filed Under: Litigation Transactional Law Employment Law
Brunswick Bowling & Billiards v. Ng-Cadlaon 2010-CA-1844 (Boyd Circuit Court November 4, 2011)
Customer executed a personal guarantee of business obligations. Upon default, customer challenged the personal guarantee claiming it unenforceable under KRS 371.065. The trial court agreed and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed opining that the guarantee was not attached to the note, did not refer to the specific note nor did it make any references to particular sections of the note.
Personal guarantee/KRS 371.065Litigation Transactional Law
Crawford v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (2008 WL 2885230 (E.D.Ky.))
Justin Crawford, a Sergeant in the Custody Bureau at the Fayette County Detention Center, came to Miller, Griffin & Marks with a complaint: the Detention Center administrators routinely refused to allow officers to take legally required meal and rest breaks, were not fairly compensating them for the true number of hours worked, and were retaliating against the few employees who dared to speak out. In a work environment which requires daily contact with dangerous individuals, the employees’ inability to enjoy meaningful meal and rest breaks away from inmates, alarms and other work responsibilities was particularly troublesome. Sergeant Crawford explained that many other employees had the same complaints, but were afraid of the consequences of publicizing their views. Thereafter, seven other Detention Center officers agreed to join him as lead plaintiffs in a class collective action originally filed in the Fayette Circuit Court, but ultimately resolved in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Sergeant Crawford was eventually joined by 316 other current and former Detention Center employees, all of whom alleged that the LFUCG had failed to comply with federal and state wage and hour laws. After more than two years of intense litigation, which included the taking and defending of almost one hundred depositions and extensive motion practice before the Court, Miller, Griffin & Marks was able to negotiate a fair settlement on behalf of the class. The Detention Center plaintiffs were finally paid the wages to which they were entitled. Even more importantly, the settlement included provisions to protect and benefit all Detention Center employees, present and future. The employees were assured of sufficient time in which to eat their meals, and an accurate method of reporting hours worked. Miller, Griffin & Marks is proud to have represented the Detention Center employees who serve our community, and remains committed to the values underlying the Fair Labor Standards Act.Litigation Employment Law