 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hoffman v. Yellow Cab Company of Louisville9/27/2001
s of self-insured vehicles.
Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
GRAVES, JOHNSTONE, KELLER and STUMBO, JJ., concur.
LAMBERT, C.J., dissents by separate opinion, with WINTERSHEIMER, J., joining that dissenting opinion.
DISSENTING OPINION
LAMBERT, Chief Justice, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. A statutorily compliant self-insurance plan is merely a permissible substitute for a mandatory automobile insurance policy. Thus, once Yellow Cab made the decision to become a self-insured, it was required to take on the same responsibilities of complying with the law as would an insurance company. One of those responsibilities is to make available uninsured motorist coverage. KRS 304.49-080.
With a self-insured, the need to vigorously enforce the law with respect to making uninsured motorist coverage available is even greater than with owners of private vehicles. The owner of a private vehicle would be presumed to want uninsured motorist coverage to protect family members and friends injured by uninsured motorists. Under the majority's result here, any incentive for a corporation that owns a fleet of vehicles to purchase uninsured coverage is destroyed. Thus, a primary goal of UM coverage has been defeated by this apparent loophole created for the "self-insured."
WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins this dissenting opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|