I decided to come back and post some again.  I might not post every day or every week, but I have decided to post again to Kentucky Tort Journal. I realize I miss posting my opinions and analysis of important Kentucky law.  More importantly, I miss letting people know my opinions on certain cases.  So, for what it is worth, I’m going to post again.  So, keep a lookout.  You might find something interesting.

After several years, several changes, and more than several posts it is with a heavy heart that I advise my readers that the Kentucky Tort Journal is signing off.  I will no longer be posting or updating original posts or decisions.

Kentucky Tort Journal was my first attempt at blogging.  Starting in 2004, my goal was to find a platform where I could express my thoughts about events, articles, cases and decisions that dealt with my area of practice.  I also wanted to explore the new medium and had great hopes for its use among lawyers.  Many of my contemporaries have also faded into the blogosphere, leaving behind remnants in time of their thoughts about whatever topic they chose to write.  Perhaps that is the fate of the KTJ.  It is somewhat interesting to know that while the journal is no more, my thoughts and opinions will linger like graffiti on an old wall in an old town.  Passed rarely, if ever, but there nonetheless, its true impact forever lost to its time and those who lived it, one day to be replaced by something else, something new.

While I am officially signing off, I will keep publishing the blog, at least for the time being, as a kind of archive.  There is simply too much information, too many hours, to much hard work and thought to simply turn out the lights.  Perhaps one day, but for now I’ll just leave the light on and shut the door.

I still have great hopes for blogs and the bloggers who blog them. Whle I am wrapping up this chapter, I am readily involved in opening another.  I encourage each of you to view my new blog; Kentucky Accident Information at http://kyaccidentinfo.com.  Look around and check back.  While something quite different than the KTJ, I think it’s truly the next frontier for blogs in the legal field.

I want to end by thanking each of you who supported me throughout the past four years.  I am always amazed at the number of attorneys who read my stuff and the good things they had to say.  I can’t begin to say enough about the good friends I met through this blog, so I won’t.  I’ll just say thank you to them too.

So, thank you all.  God Bless.  Good night and good luck.


The Court of Appeals recently posted its minutes for September 5th, here.  One published case dealing with torts and insurance.

The case of Rudolph v. Shelter Insurance Companies, the Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of a misrepresentation in a fire policy and whether summary judgment was proper for Shelter.  Rudolph applied for fire insurance policy with Shelter Insurance Company.  After his house burned to the ground it was revealed that he was convicted of a felony (manufacturing methamphetamine).  The application asked if anyone applying for insurance had been convicted of a felony.  Rudolph’s application denied any such convictions.  After Shelter found out about the misrepresentation they rescinded the policy, claiming it was material to the risk and had it known it would not have issued the policy.  The trial court granted summary judgment.

Rudolph claimed that he did not fill out the answers to the application, was not asked the question by the agent, and was not aware that the answer was false.  He alleged that he only signed the application in a perfunctory manner.  The court of appeals believed that an issue of fact existed whether Rudolph should be held responsible for a misrepresentation on an application when there was an issue as to whether he actually made the misrepresentation or whether the agent ever asked him the question.  The court of appeals noted that Kentucky law differentiates between those cases when the applicant in a fire policy fills out the application and signs it, and those when the agent fills out the information and the application is signed only as a formality.  It reversed the summary judgment.

The Kentucky Law Review recently reported on the $5.1 million dollar verdict in Jefferson County. The KLR notes it is one of the highest awards in recent memory and links to the Courier Journal article, discussing the case. Click on the link to read the entire KLR review with a link to the article.

I would also like to remark on the recent changes to the KLR. Congratulations to Mike Stevens on the recent upgrades in style and layout. Nice paint job, Mike! Very impressive.  Keep up the good work.

Today I discuss the Court of Appeals Minutes for August 29, 2008, and the interesting case of Lee v. Shower, MD and Maysville Obstetrics, a medical negligence case, which resulted after the death of an infant from complications during delivery.

Click the play button to listen.

Subscribe to this podcast using Itunes!

Right click and select “save link as” to download to your computer or favorite MP3 player!

The Court of Appeals has posted its minutes for August 22nd, here.  There was only one published case dealing with torts and insurance.  Please check back for my digest with comments.

The Kentucky Supreme Court just published Nanny v. Smith, which extended the time for filing a lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in those cases where the suit is timely filed, but the clerk delays issuance of a summons. Under Kentucky law the issuance of the summons begins the lawsuit, not the filing of the Complaint. In today’s Podcast I talk about the decision and comment on its impact. Click the play button below to listen.