DAVILA V. ALLSTATE INS. COM.
INSURANCE: Foreign insurer that does business in Kentucky is not required to provide uninsured motorist benefits, but if it does it provides minimum limits under Kentucky law; KRS 304.39-110(2)
2007-CA-001235
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED: 129
DATE RENDERED: 6/20/2008
Additionally, the high Court reasoned KRS 304.39-100(2) requires a foreign insurance company authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth to provide basic reparation benefits as required by KRS Chapter 304.39
Furthermore, we conclude that the reasoning found in Dairyland does not apply because the language in KRS 304.39-110(2) specifically mentions basic reparation benefits but does not mention uninsured motorist coverage.
we find the Bonnlander Court’s logic and reasoning applies equally as well to UM coverage, even though the Bonnlander Court addressed UIM coverage, due to the long-recognized similarity between the two types of coverage.
So, applying the rationale in Bonnlander, we conclude that KRS 304.39-110(2) does not apply to UM coverage; thus, a foreign insurance company that is doing business in the Commonwealth is not required to provide the minimum UM coverage as required by Kentucky law in said insurance company’s foreign policies.
However, we note that a foreign insurance company doing business here must still provide the statutorily required minimum UM coverage regarding policies written in the Commonwealth. Thus, the trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment to Allstate.
Consequently, because KRS 304.39-100(2) does not apply to the Salazars’ Florida policy, the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.
Comments