We assist insurers and their insureds, as well as self-insured companies, in defending a wide variety of claims, including personal injury, commercial, professional malpractice, product liability, construction, and bad faith claims.
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
Hank Investments, Inc. v. Century Surety Company, (2013-CA-879, Fayette Circuit Court)
In a declaratory judgment action, business owning bar sought recovery of its costs from its general liability carrier of its defense in litigation in which it was successful in obtaining summary judgment. Insurance carrier had not only denied coverage but also denied a duty to defend. The denial of defense was based upon the wording of the complaint in which it was alleged a patron was overserved by employees of the bar. The evidence in the case revealed that there were no facts supporting the contention of overservice and bar was granted summary judgment. Given that allegations of the complaint were not proved, bar contended carrier owed the duty to defend and should have at least provided cost of defense as such a result was a possible outcome of the allegations. The court of appeals affirmed no coverage and the supreme court denied discretionary review.
Insurance coverage/duty to defend/dram shop liabilityLitigation Transactional Law Insurance Defense
Snow v. West American Insurance Company (No. 2003-CA-001062-MR, Court of Appeals 2003)
A passenger was tragically killed in a collision with another automobile. At the time of the accident the vehicle was allegedly uninsured and excluded by the family’s other auto insurance policies. MGM was retained by the family to challenge the insurance company’s application of exclusions to coverage and refusal to defend and indemnify the father who was driving the car at the time his daughter was killed. The appeal dealt with interpretations of exclusions in the insurance policy.Litigation Insurance Defense
Continental Marine, Inc. v. Bayliner Marine Corp. (No. 95-CA-2187-MR)
A car accident occurred when an engine cover flew off of a boat that was being towed on the highway. The driver who caused the accident filed a suit against the driver who was towing the boat and the marine company who had recently serviced the boat, alleging that they had negligently replaced the engine cover. The company then filed a third party suit against the boat’s manufacturer, claiming they had defectively designed the boat and were ultimately responsible for causing the accident under a product liability theory. The original parties settled the matter, the marine company sought contribution and indemnity from the manufacturer. MGM effectively defended against the claim and the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the court concluded that apportionment statute did not apply to the marine company’s claim and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Contribution & Indemnity/apportionment/product design or manufacturing defect/procedureLitigation Insurance Defense