Thomas B. Russell

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightshealthcare

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns a dispute over materials omitted from the administrative record in an ERISA action challenging the denial of accidental death benefits under a group policy issued by Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA). Plaintiffs, beneficiaries of Wade Thies who died in a 2006 jet ski accident, moved to compel production of two emails withheld as privileged and an administrative manual not included in the record. The court granted the motion in part, ordering disclosure of the emails because the fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege applied as they related to plan administration rather than anticipated litigation, and denied it in part, finding the manual need not be produced because it was not used or considered in reviewing the claim. The decision turned on application of ERISA fiduciary duties and standards for the administrative record in benefits cases.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether a legal malpractice claim against an attorney for negligently failing to record a security document before his Chapter 7 bankruptcy was discharged in that no-asset proceeding, even though the resulting damages occurred afterward when the property was sold. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's holding that the claim qualified as a pre-petition contingent right to payment under the broad definition in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) and was therefore discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 727(b), with no independent post-discharge liability arising from the attorney's inaction. The court also affirmed that actual damages are not required for a claim to arise in bankruptcy. It remanded in part for further consideration of whether the case should be reopened to address possible unadministered assets.

proceduretorts & liabilitypropertyfederal power

This case involved a high school junior, S.B., who was reassigned to an alternative school for 90 days after school officials investigated reports that she purchased a prescription pill from another student on campus, a level-four violation of the school's code of conduct. S.B., through her mother, sued the Ballard County Board of Education under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, seeking a preliminary injunction to return to her regular high school on the grounds that the disciplinary process lacked adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court denied the motion after balancing the four factors for preliminary injunctive relief. It found that the plaintiff had not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits because the investigation, which included questioning the student, presenting witness statements, and allowing her to offer names of potential exonerating witnesses, satisfied due process requirements. The court also determined there was no irreparable injury, given that the alternative school provided a comparable education, and that the public interest favored allowing school officials to enforce discipline to maintain a safe, drug-free environment.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a defective wastewater treatment tank that ISP Chemicals contracted Dutchland to build, leading to leaks and cracks; after ISP sued Dutchland for breach of contract and negligence, Dutchland filed third-party claims against Hall Blake, the soil engineering firm, for indemnity, negligent misrepresentation, and apportionment. The court granted Hall Blake's motion for summary judgment on all counts. The core reasoning was that Dutchland had no contractual privity or independent duty from Hall Blake supporting an indemnity claim, the negligent misrepresentation claim was duplicative of indemnity without separate damages, and Kentucky law does not recognize apportionment as a standalone cause of action. Dutchland preserved rights to seek apportionment instructions at trial but could not pursue it substantively here.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract claim by Primary Care Medical Center against its insurer, Peerless Indemnity Insurance, seeking additional business interruption coverage after an ice storm caused a three-day power and utility outage that forced the medical offices to close. Primary Care had received the policy's $10,000 per-occurrence limit but argued that each affiliated physician qualified as a separate insured, entitling it to multiple payouts totaling over $100,000. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy's plain language identified only Primary Care itself as the insured under the business income provisions, with coverage limits applying per occurrence rather than per individual. Under Kentucky law, unambiguous insurance contracts must be enforced as written, and the court found no ambiguity in the Coverage Form and Endorsement that would support the plaintiff's interpretation.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Tinsley v. Connecticut General Life Insurance, the plaintiff sued in Kentucky state court after the defendant denied her requests to waive premiums on a voluntary group universal life insurance policy obtained through her former employer, Siemens, based on her claimed total disability. The defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting both federal question jurisdiction under ERISA and diversity jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that the policy fell within ERISA's safe harbor exemption because it was entirely voluntary, funded with after-tax dollars, and involved no employer contributions, so it did not create a federal question. The court also held that the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction was not met, as the claimed damages (primarily under $6,000 in premiums plus possible punitive damages and fees) did not exceed $75,000 to a legal certainty. The alternative motion to strike ERISA defenses was denied as moot.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Secura Insurance Company's request for a declaratory judgment regarding its obligation to defend and indemnify Gray Construction, Inc., as an additional insured under a policy issued to subcontractor Green Mechanical Construction, Inc., in connection with a state court negligence action arising from a fire at a manufacturing plant. The court denied Secura's motion for determination of coverage and granted summary judgment to both Gray and Green. The court's reasoning centered on the interpretation of the insurance policy's provisions for completed operations coverage, finding that the relevant work had not been put to its intended use in a manner that terminated coverage prior to the incident.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Kopacz v. Hopkinsville Surface & Storm Water Utility, homeowners sued the local utility and city over a nearby storm water drainage construction project, claiming it caused dust, noise, and pollution in violation of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and state laws on nuisance and trespass. The defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims or stay the case pending similar litigation in state court. The court dismissed the Clean Water Act claim for lack of standing and stayed the remaining federal proceedings under Colorado River abstention principles, finding that the parallel state case adequately protected the parties' rights and that abstention would prevent piecemeal litigation.

environmentprocedurepropertytorts & liability

The case concerned the U.S. Forest Service's 2007 decision authorizing continued maintenance of open lands in the Land Between the Lakes National Recreational Area, including a 2008 stewardship agreement with the National Wild Turkey Federation that allowed private parties to issue farming permits on federal land. Plaintiffs alleged violations of NEPA, arguing an environmental impact statement was required instead of a revised environmental assessment, and of the Organic Administration Act due to unlawful delegation of permit authority. The court granted each party's summary judgment motion in part, holding that the agency satisfied NEPA because the record supported its finding of no significant impact, but violated the OAA because the Stewardship Act could not reasonably be read to permit delegation of special-use permit issuance, which agency regulations reserve exclusively for authorized Forest Service employees.

environmentfederal power

In United States v. Carney, the government moved for reconsideration of a prior order suppressing evidence seized from the defendant's apartment and vehicle pursuant to a search warrant in a case involving the passing of counterfeit currency at stores. The court initially suppressed the evidence, including a firearm found during the search, on grounds that the warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause linking the locations to the crime. On reconsideration, the court granted the motion and held that the evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule from United States v. Leon. The reasoning centered on the affidavit providing a minimal nexus through facts tying the defendant to the vehicle used in the incidents and to the apartment address listed in official records, such that a well-trained officer would not have known the search was illegal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a dispute over whether the former trustee of family trusts breached its fiduciary duties to trust beneficiaries by accepting royalty payments under a limestone quarry lease after the lessee had removed and sold soil from the property, which the beneficiaries argued waived their right to terminate the lease and negotiate better terms. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. It dismissed all claims by the Eula Trust plaintiffs because the former trustee owed them no fiduciary duties under an investment management agreement, and it dismissed most claims by the C.R. Trust plaintiffs on grounds including waiver and lack of breach. The court allowed limited claims to proceed while ordering the plaintiffs to bear certain costs related to the motions.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

In United States v. Carney, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his apartment and vehicle after his arrest on state charges involving counterfeit currency, arguing the arrest was unlawful and the search warrant lacked probable cause. The court granted the motion to suppress, ruling that while the arrest itself was lawful, the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to establish a probable cause nexus between the defendant, the vehicle, and the apartment. The court reasoned that the connections cited, including the vehicle's location outside the apartment and prior counterfeit incidents, were too attenuated to justify the search, rendering the affidavit bare bones and the resulting evidence inadmissible.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute where Secura Insurance filed a federal declaratory judgment action against Gray Construction seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Gray as an additional insured under policies issued to subcontractor Green Mechanical in connection with a 2007 workplace fire that caused a death and led to a pending state-court tort lawsuit. Gray moved for the district court to decline jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court denied the motion after weighing the five relevant Sixth Circuit factors, finding that two factors clearly supported exercising jurisdiction, one counseled against it, and the others were mixed or only mildly against, making federal jurisdiction appropriate overall.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case arose when State Farm sought to recover from the United States, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, basic reparation benefits it had paid to its insureds after a Navy employee caused a car accident in Kentucky. The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing it qualified as a secured person under the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act and was therefore immune from subrogation claims. The court granted the motion, following the Sixth Circuit's decision in Young v. United States, which held that the United States provides the functional equivalent of required security through the FTCA and Federal Employees Compensation Act, making it a secured person rather than a reparation obligor under state law. The court determined that a later Kentucky Supreme Court ruling did not alter this federal-law conclusion about the United States' status.

federal powertorts & liability