The case concerns a dispute over the denial of benefits under a disability insurance policy, with the plaintiff filing suit in Kentucky state court and the defendants removing the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. More than three years later, the plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) required the insurers to be deemed citizens of the same state as the insured, thereby destroying complete diversity. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the action did not qualify as a direct action against a liability insurer under the statute and that no other basis existed to divest the court of jurisdiction.
The case involved beneficiaries of a deceased employee who sued Life Insurance Company of North America under ERISA after the insurer denied accidental death benefits under an employer-sponsored policy. The employee died from drowning following a jet ski crash while his blood alcohol level was 0.223, and the insurer concluded the incident was not a covered accident because it was foreseeable due to intoxication and that an exclusion for intentionally self-inflicted injuries applied. The court reviewed the denial under the arbitrary and capricious standard and determined that the insurer had misapplied the policy language on foreseeability and the exclusion, failed to adequately consider medical and accident reports classifying the death as accidental, and used inconsistent reasoning across denial letters. It therefore granted the plaintiffs' motion on Count I, dismissed Count II, and remanded the matter to the insurer for a full and fair review consistent with the court's guidance on the proper standards.
This case involves an employee, Josh James, who worked as a welder for James Marine and was diagnosed with a brain tumor, later suffering a seizure at work in 2008. After medical leave and back issues, the company required a fitness exam that led to a determination he could not return without being seizure-free for six months, resulting in his termination. James sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, as well as under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for improper handling of leave. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion in part, dismissing the ADA claims on the grounds that the seizure history posed a direct threat to safety in the workplace and that FMLA notice would not have altered the outcome, while denying the motion in part on other issues.
The case involves a dispute over the validity of amendments to a revocable trust created by Sara Loving Sutherland, with plaintiffs (her daughter and granddaughter) challenging the final amendment that excluded one beneficiary and alleging lack of capacity, undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims against the co-trustees. The trustees moved for court guidance allowing payment of their ongoing attorneys' fees from the trust corpus during the litigation. The court denied the motions, holding that trustees are not automatically entitled to interim payment and that reimbursement from the trust should be considered only after the case concludes if the trustees prevail and their expenses prove reasonable. The decision noted that Kentucky law and the trust instrument permit such fees in principle but require a post-litigation determination to avoid prejudging the merits or burdening beneficiaries prematurely.
In United States v. Allen, the defendant, a commercial truck driver, moved to suppress marijuana discovered during a warrantless search of his trailer at a Kentucky weigh station following a random Level II inspection. The court denied the motion to suppress. The initial inspection was lawful under state regulations as a random check at a fixed facility, but the officer's entry into the trailer exceeded the scope of that inspection and lacked probable cause under the automobile exception. However, the defendant's subsequent consent to the search was knowing and voluntary, as he was informed of his right to refuse and had indicated he would have consented from the outset, rendering the evidence admissible.
In Dunn v. Gordon Food Services, Inc., plaintiff Angela Dunn sued her former employer for wrongful termination, age and gender discrimination, and hostile work environment under state law after her October 2008 termination, filing the suit in April 2010. The defendant moved for summary judgment based on a clause in Dunn's 2004 employment application that required any employment-related claims to be brought within one year of the underlying event. The court granted the motion, holding that Kentucky law permits contractual waivers of statutes of limitations in employment applications, that Dunn knowingly agreed to the one-year limit by checking the box and signing, and that her at-will status did not invalidate the provision. The claims were therefore time-barred.
