Insurance Defense

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.

Case Summaries

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 liability

Read more ›

January 1, 2013 Filed Under:   Litigation   Transactional Law   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 liability

Read more ›

January 1, 2013 Filed Under:   Litigation   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.

Read more ›

January 1, 2003 Filed Under:   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/procedure

Read more ›

January 1, 1995 Filed Under:   Litigation   Insurance Defense