Justice John Minton Named Chief Justice
May 13, 2008
The Courier Journal reported on the recent election of Justice John Minton to the position of Chief Justice. The article; Ky.’s new chief justice hailed for fairness can be found, here. I believe the description provided of Justice Minton is a fair one, although I am sure many attorneys would disagree. I also think many attorneys would disagree with the articles insinuation that political agendas and special interests do not play a part in Kentucky’s judicial system.
Court of Appeals Minutes for May 9th
May 9, 2008
The Court of Appeals has posted its minutes for May 9th, here. There was only one published case dealing with torts and insurance. Diaz v. Barker & Allstate dealt with several procedural issues at the trial court level in an automobile negligence case, including plaintiff’s failure to promptly appeal a summary judgment order in favor of Barker under CR 54.02 and issues regarding the trial judge’s failure to recuse himself.
Which States Are Saving You On Car Insurance?
May 9, 2008
MSN Money has an interesting article on which states are keeping a lid on car insurance. According to the article, a survey by the Consumer Federation of America showed that those states that require insurance companies to get preapproval before raising rates are best at keeping rates relatively low. The downside? In those states where no such procedure is in affect, the result is a rate increase of 100% or more.
Unfortunately, Kentucky was listed as a high increase state with a 100% increase in insurance rates between 1989 and 2005.
AIG Insurance Posts $7.81 Billion Loss
May 9, 2008
MSN Money reported on AIG’s $7.81 Billion Loss:
The company late Thursday said it lost $7.81 billion, or $3.09 per share in the period, down a whopping 383% from the profit of $4.13 billion, or $1.58 per share, it earned in the same quarter last year. The results fell far short of analysts’ expectations of a 76-cents-a-share loss.
Ouch…
The Court of Appeals recently published Woolum v. Hillman, a medical malpractice case arising from the death of Hillman’s unborn child. One of the more interesting issues on appeal was the allowance by the trial judge of evidence that an expert, Dr. Butcher, testifying on behalf of Dr. Woolum had the same malpractice carrier as the defendant. Woolum argued such evidence was irrelevant and highly prejudicial and pointed to established case law in support.
However, the trial judge noted five reasons why evidence rule 411′s prohibition on the mention of liability insurance did not apply. They included:
(1) Dr. Butcher unequivocally stated in his deposition that he is of the belief and opinion that malpractice cases result in, and have a direct link to, rate increases;
(2) Dr. Butcher left one state because he believed there was a collusion between judges and lawyers in malpractice cases;
(3) Dr. Butcher’s comments were so severe during his deposition that defense counsel felt the need to rein him in and caution him;
(4) Dr. Butcher has established a general hostility to medical negligence cases;
(5) Dr. Woolum and Dr. Butcher have more than simply the casual connection of having the same insurance company, as they had worked side by side for 20 years in the same community hospital.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence was being used to show Dr. Butcher’s “extreme prejudice towards malpractice cases.” The court went further; “Ordinarily, the extreme prejudicial effect of such testimony would outweigh the probative value, but Dr. Butcher’s hostility to malpractice cases is extreme and combined with his personal relationship to Dr. Woolum, provides a sufficient basis for the trial court to find that the testimony is admissible.”
The dissent noted:
Dr. Butcher declared under oath that his insurance premiums would not be directly affected by his testimony on behalf of Dr. Woolum. That is, his cost of insurance would neither be increased nor decreased. This evidence is unrebutted. Consequently, the mere coincidence of being covered by the same insurance company does not indicate sufficient bias or prejudice to affect credibility. Any probative value of admitting evidence of insurance coverage is substantially outweighed by the likely predilection to find liability without fault.
Editor’s Note: The dissent makes a very valid point. That Dr. Butcher is biased towards other doctors in medical malpractice cases is obvious. That Dr. Butcher is hostile towards claims of medical malpractice is too. However, that Dr. Butcher shares the same medical malpractice carrier as the defendant is completely irrelevant to show bias in light of Dr. Butcher’s direct testimony that he did not think that his rates would be effected by the claim against Dr. Woolum. The fact they share the same carrier does not show bias in this particular instance.
The case also has other interesting discussions on issues found in medical malpractice cases, making it worth reading.
Court of Appeals Minutes for May 2nd
May 5, 2008
The Court of Appeals has published its minutes for May 2nd, here. Please check back for digests of cases involving tort and insurance law.
