River City Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 614, Inc. et al v. Kentucky Retirement Systems by and through its Board of Trustees

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff Arnold be awarded an additional $6,504.00, and that Plaintiff Simkins be awarded $83,168.98. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 6/3/2020.(CBD)cc: COR (Main Document 72 replaced on 6/3/2020) (CBD).

Case: 3:17-cv-00102-WOB Doc #: 72 Filed: 06/03/20 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 3491

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY  
CENTRAL DIVISION AT FRANKFURT 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-102 (WOB)

RIVER CITY FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS,

DEFENDANT

This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for
damages. This court previously awarded monetary damages to three
Plaintiffs and requested that Plaintiffs Arnold and Simkins submit
proof regarding what it would have cost to obtain health insurance
comparable to the insurance that Kentucky Retirement Systems had
promised

to

provide.

(Doc.

66).

The

Court

requested

this

information because it thought that Plaintiffs Arnold and Simkins
could

have

mitigated

their

damages

by

purchasing

comparable

insurance rather than leaving their job or reducing their work
hours.
That proved to be true in the case of Plaintiff Arnold. He
could have mitigated his damages by purchasing insurance through
the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department rather than quitting his
job. (Doc. 71, at 13). Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff

Case: 3:17-cv-00102-WOB Doc #: 72 Filed: 06/03/20 Page: 2 of 4 - Page ID#: 3492

Arnold $6,504.00, which represents what it would have cost him to
purchase insurance through the Jefferson County Sheriff.
Plaintiff Simkins on the other hand faced a more uncertain
situation. Since he did not have the option of purchasing alternate
coverage through his employer due to the contract he worked under,
he was left with two options, either reduce his hours to part time
and retain health insurance coverage through Defendant or remain
a full-time employee and purchase insurance on the open market.
While the Court suspected that purchasing alternate coverage on
the open market would have been cheaper than reducing his hours,
that assumption proved false. According to Plaintiffs’ evidence,
purchasing comparable coverage on the open market would have cost
$103,004.86, which is about $20,000.00 more than his claim for
lost wages. (Doc. 67, at 5).
Given that the cost of comparable insurance exceeds what
Plaintiff Simkins lost in wages by reducing his hours to part time,
purchasing alternative coverage was not in actuality an effective
way to mitigate his damages. Simkins’s decision to reduce his hours
to part-time, though costly, was the best option in light of
Defendant’s threats to cancel his insurance coverage. Accordingly,
the Court awards Plaintiff Simkins $83,168.98 in lost wages. (Doc.
Defendant raises numerous objections to Plaintiffs’ damages
request,

their

calculations

regarding

the

cost

of

substitute

insurance, and Defendant’s ability to pay a damages award. The
Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Bay Hills Capital Mgmt., et al.
OPINION AND ORDER
- 2 -

Case: 3:17-cv-00102-WOB Doc #: 72 Filed: 06/03/20 Page: 3 of 4 - Page ID#: 3493

Court finds that those objections lack merit. Plaintiffs have been
clear from the beginning that they were seeking damages related to
Defendant’s breach of contract to provide health insurance and the
Court has found that Plaintiffs can recover monetary damages from
Defendant.

Defendant

could

foresee

that

these

damages

might

include the cost Plaintiffs incurred to provide health insurance
coverage for themselves and their family.
The

Court

requested

that

Plaintiffs

submit

evidence

concerning the cost of insurance and they provided an affidavit of
a health insurance underwriter. (Doc. 67-1). Thus, Defendant could
foresee that Plaintiffs would obtain information from a source
like an underwriter to prove damages. But rather than address the
costs or provide cost information of its own to rebut Plaintiffs
figures, Defendant argues that underwriter’s opinion is “rank
hearsay,” which is not the case given that the underwriter is using
materials typically relied upon by those in her field to support
her estimates. MACTEC, Inc. v. Bechtel Jacobs Co., LLC, 346 F.
App’x 59, 78 (6th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the Court is only relying
on the underwriter’s report to to establish Plaintiff Arnold’s
damages and to make the decision that, in the case of Plaintiff
Simkins, lost wages is the most appropriate measure of damages.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Arnold be awarded an
additional

$6,504.00,

and

that

Plaintiff

Simkins

be

awarded

$83,168.98.
Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Bay Hills Capital Mgmt., et al.
OPINION AND ORDER
- 3 -

Case: 3:17-cv-00102-WOB Doc #: 72 Filed: 06/03/20 Page: 4 of 4 - Page ID#: 3494

This 3rd day of June, 2020.

Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Bay Hills Capital Mgmt., et al.
OPINION AND ORDER
- 4 -