In January of 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky decided a Louisville car accident case that involved underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”). (See Blair v. Geico General Ins. Co., 2013 WL 97737 (E.D. Ky. 2013)). The personal injury lawyer from Louisville first put this car accident case into suit in the state court. The defendant UIM carrier then removed it to federal court. The defendant UIM carrier then filed a motion for summary judgment.
The court in this Louisville personal injury car accident case denied the first motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant but granted the second one. In this case, the car accident occurred in June of 2009. A truck crashed into the car of the plaintiff. Plaintiff received approximately $8,700 in PIP medical benefits. The car accident plaintiff less than 2 years later, sued her insurance company for improper denial of about $1,300 in PIP payouts. She then settled with the wrongful party during that time for its car policy limits. After doing so, plaintiff then filed her UIM lawsuit trying to get more money for the serious bodily injuries that she had sustained.
Subsequently, the PIP carrier paid the remaining PIP benefits to the medical providers. The court then granted the motion to dismiss that complaint. But, on the pending case, the plaintiff had not followed the court’s order and was prohibited from presenting any expert testimony in her car accident Louisville personal injury case.
The court in this Louisville car accident case had many issues to deal with. In no particular order, the court looked at the following issues. Coots issue. UM coverage is first party coverage which means that it is a contractual obligation directly to the insured which must be honored even if the tortfeasor cannot be identified. Id. “The carrier may be sued without first obtaining a judgment against the uninsured motorist.” (cites omitted). The court was looking at whether there was a justifiable reason for the plaintiff in splitting the PIP and UIM claims into separate actions. The court was looking at the res judicata issue since the other case had been resolved already.
The UIM carrier was arguing that the PIP claims and the UIM claims must be brought together or lost because the y arise out of the same facts and the same insurance policy. Id. But, the court did not agree and the UIM’s first motion for summary judgment was denied.
But, the second motion was based on the plaintiff’s failure to disclose her expert witnesses in a timely manner. To that motion, in this Louisville personal injury car accident case, the court granted the summary judgment motion. The personal ijury lawyer from Louisville for whatever reason did not adhere to the Rule 26 guidelines as set out by the court. “Kentucky law usually requires expert or medical testimony to establish that an incident legally caused a medial injury.” (cites omitted). This is not needed in every case, but in most. So, since in this Kentucky personal injury case, expert of medical testimony was needed to prove the car accident and injureis resulting therefrom, the court dismissed the case on summary judgment since the plaintiff could not prove her case without the expert which had already been excluded by the court.
If you have been the subject of a car accident Louisville personal injury case, please call and speak to a Personal Injury Lawyer from Louisville at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (888-275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!