| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
Ky Legislature: Booster seat bill picks up support - post and comment at Kentucky Law regarding proposed legislation and impact on torts by elimination of inadmissibility of evidence, apportionment, and negligence.
Ky Trials: Fewer Slip and Falls and Speculation as to the Why - posting from www.KentuckyLawBlog.com regarding Courier Journal story on slip and fall verdicts and causes.
Top 10 + 1 Tort and Insurance Law Decisions for 2006 - posting at www.KentuckyLawBlog.com.
However, additional cases of note are:
DOWELL V. SAFE AUTO INS. CO.
INSURANCE: UM Benefits; coverage; "hit and run"
2005-SC-000153-DG.pdf
PUBLISHED: REVERSING AND REMANDING; LAMBERT
DATE RENDERED: 12/21/2006
Safe Auto's automobile insurance policy did not contain the typical "hit and run" exclusion of coverage and denied UM benefits when it's insured was injured in a car accident by an unknown driver/vehicle who had made contact. SC rejected Safe Auto's position that there was no UM coverage since there was no proof that the vehicle was uninsured and concluded that an unidentified hit and run vehicle is not excluded from the UM coverage of this policy. As such, coverage is deemed applicable to Appellants .
