Bentley v. Motorist Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 1/11/13. For reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion, the Motorists' motion for summary judgment is DENIED at this time.cc:counsel (SJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-556-H
DAVID S. BENTLEY

PLAINTIFF

V.
MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This declaratory judgment action arises from an automobile accident between David
Bentley, a wrecker service operator dispatched to the scene of an accident, and Jeff Triplett,
whose is attempting a legal turn from a stalled northbound lane of Kentucky Highway 55 onto a
ramp leading to I64. Bentley was injured in the ensuing accident and now seeks underinsured
motorists benefits from Motorists Mutual, which provides coverage for Bentley’s employer.
Motorists asserts only one defense in opposition to Bentley’s claim and, in fact, seeks
summary judgment on the basis of it. The defense is that at the time of the accident Bentley was
traveling the wrong way on Highway 55 as he approached the accident scene and, therefore, was
negligent as a matter of law. According to Motorists, this disqualifies Bentley from any right to
underinsured motorists coverage.
To recover underinsured motorists benefits under Policy, Bentley must establish that the
underinsured motorist, Triplett, was at fault in the accident. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Hatfield, 122 S.W.3d 36, 39-40 (Ky. 2003). Thus, Bentley must establish that some portion of
the fault for the accident lies with the underinsured motorist. See Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Ryan, 177 S.W.3d 797, 803 (Ky. 2005).
Assuming for the moment that a jury would find Bentley at fault for traveling the wrong

way on Highway 55, even though he may have done so for a legitimate purpose, such a
determination would not dispose of the central question at issue here. Even though Bentley may
be found at fault or even negligent as a matter of law, Kentucky law recognizes that several
parties may combine to cause an accident. The concept of comparative negligence is designed to
resolve such a common perplexity. Therefore, the Court concludes that even a finding of
negligence per se as to Bentley does not entirely bar his claim of benefits under the Motorists
Policy.
From the facts and evidence, a jury could believe that Bentley was traveling the wrong
way at a reasonable speed with appropriate warning lights within an area of an accident-induced
traffic jam. He may have even reasonably believed that he was permitted to proceed in this
manner. But no one disputes Triplett’s right to make his left turn onto the I64 ramp. Drivers
under all circumstances must exercise reasonable care to avoid hazards to others. This duty
might be considered even more acute in an accident zone. It is not, therefore, beyond the realm
of a reasonable jury’s province to find that Triplett failed to exercise the degree of care required
to observe an oncoming vehicle in an accident zone, even one traveling in an unlawful direction.
Consequently, the Court cannot say that a jury would be unreasonable to assign some
share of comparative fault to Triplett. At the appropriate time, the Court will likely consider an
order entitling Motorists to an instruction as to Bentley’s negligence as a matter of law.
However, even in such an event Bentley’s liability as a matter of law does not completely bar his
recovery on the Motorists Policy.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Motorists’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED at

2

this time.

January 11, 2013

cc:

Counsel of Record

3