Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC
Select Page
Torts & Insurance

Sturgill Turner’s Kentucky insurance defense attorneys represent insurance companies, individual insureds, and self-insured entities under a variety of insurance policies in courts across the Commonwealth. With more than a combined century of litigation experience working these clients, we have the ability to analyze cases and resolve them in an efficient manner. Our trial experience also grants us a familiarity with the procedures, judges and potential jury pools in counties across the state, which we take into account as we litigate a case. Our insurance law and insurance defense services include:

  • Review and analysis of insurance agreements
  • Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policy claims
  • Automobile insurance claims
  • Policy coverage opinions
  • Duty to defend analysis and reservation of rights letters
  • Declaration of rights actions
  • “Bad faith” claims and extracontractual liability
  • Premises liability claims
  • Property insurance and homeowners policy claims
  • Property damage claims
  • Fraud and arson claims
  • Underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage
  • Excess coverage issues and Subrogation

 

Our automobile liability attorneys have handled cases involving severe injuries, including brain trauma and paralysis, as well as fatalities. Additionally, they have dealt with a wide range of automobile liability issues, including those that apply in pedestrian cases, trucking cases, multiple and single vehicle accidents, no fault coverage, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, and lien, subrogation, and indemnity issues.

 

  • Estepp v. Peters, No. 2012-CA-943 (Ky. App.) (opinion citation: 2014 WL 2640607, Ky. App. June 13, 2014): Obtained summary judgment at trial court level based on the statute of limitations and application of Gailor v. Alsabi, 990 S.W.2d 597 (Ky. 1999) for estate of driver killed in automobile accident. Obtained dismissal at appellate level for the opposing party’s failure to timely appeal a final and appealable order.
  • Neal v. Donelson, et al., 2013-CA-1370 (2013): Plaintiff alleged severe eye injury due to a firework on property owned by our client. Successfully obtained summary judgment as to our client’s liability before the Kenton Circuit Court. Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal was ultimately dismissed for failure to prosecute.
  • Chappell v. Transit Authority of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LexTran), et al., Fayette Circuit Court, Division 4, Civil Action No.: 10-CI-3051: Personal injury case, including allegations of a severe brain injury, involving collision between pedestrian and bus.
  • Curry v. Taylor, et al., Jefferson Circuit Court, No. 12-CI-02899 (2013): Plaintiff alleged a dog bite to a minor. Successfully obtained a dismissal for lack of prosecution.
  • Moses v. Baker, 798 F. Supp.2d 863 (E.D. Ky. 2011): We represented an insurer on an underinsured motorist coverage issue in an Ohio policy in this published federal court opinion and won summary judgment on two, independent bases. The court agreed with our arguments that an “other owned vehicle” exclusion precluded coverage and that the plaintiff failed to show that the decedent was a “resident relative” entitled to coverage under the policy.
  • Hicks v. Linville, No. 09-385-JBC (E.D. Ky. Sept. 20, 2011): This is a federal case in which we represented an insurer on an underinsured motorist coverage issue in an Ohio policy, and obtained the plaintiff’s agreement that Ohio law applied to the policy and required a set-off, which greatly reduced the exposure. Additionally, we obtained a ruling from the federal court that the plaintiff was not entitled to medical payments benefits because those damages were not sought in the complaint.
  • Coach v. First Time, Inc., Hardin Circuit Court, 08-CI-29 (2012): Plaintiff alleged claims against a property management company following a trip and fall. Following a successful settlement of the plaintiff’s claim, we represented the insurer who paid the settlement against another insurer, claiming that the policies applied on a pro rata basis. The other insurer argued that our client’s insurance was primary. The trial court granted summary judgment in our favor, finding that the policies applied pro rata.
  • James v. Great American Insurance Group, Inc., Johnson Circuit Court, Case No. 07-CI-0351 (2010): Successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of insurance company client finding no coverage for the plaintiff’s alleged claims against the putative insured due to an earth movement exclusion.
  • Schueler v. James, Fayette Circuit Court, jury trial July 7-8, 2014: Plaintiff claimed soft tissue injury and emotional harm following a motor vehicle accident when he backed into our client’s vehicle from a driveway. The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict after 20 minutes of deliberation.
  • Benson v. Delaittre, Fayette Circuit Court, jury trial December 17-18, 2014: Plaintiff claimed to have tinnitus (ringing in the ears) as the result of air bag deployment. Liability was 100 percent against client, so the only issue for jury was damages. Plaintiff asked for $160,000. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of $0 in 35 minutes.
  • Angela Blanton  et al v. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet et al, Bell Circuit Court, 09-CI-483; Tina Jewell et al v. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet et al, Bell Circuit Court, 09-CI-485. Plaintiffs alleged negligence by the state and multiple Transportation Cabinet employees for failing to erect a guard rail when their husbands were killed after sliding off a roadway in a snowstorm. Summary judgment granted for all individually named state employees based on qualified official immunity.
  • Gooch v. City of Stanford, Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2012-CA-1464: Plaintiff claimed unlawful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress after being fired from city clerk position. Summary judgment on all matters was granted, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
  • Prather v. City of Richmond, Madison Circuit Court, 13-CI-76: summary judgment granted in favor of the city in wrongful termination, worker’s compensation retaliation, whistle blower and intentional infliction of emotional distress action.
  • Lupus v. Whoughter, Fayette Circuit Court, 11-CI-203: Plaintiff, a taxi cab driver, had rejected PIP benefits pursuant to his employer’s requirement, but the rejection was not on file with the department of Insurance as required. The Court found Plaintiff not entitled to benefits paid or payable under KRS 304.39-060; nuisance value settlement.
  • Martin v. City of Richmond, Madison Circuit Court, 11-CI-1396: Plaintiff claimed that city police officer ran him off the road causing serious injuries including the amputation of one leg. Plaintiff was driving a motorcycle at speeds in excess of 100 mph in a residential area with a blood alcohol level of .236. Nuisance value settlement reached after partial summary judgment on primary claims.
  • Waddle v. McAllister, Franklin Circuit Court, 10-CI-760; State employee t-boned Plaintiff while driving a state vehicle intoxicated during work hours. Favorable settlement negotiated for client and state.
  • Castle v. Dollar General, Floyd Circuit Court, No. 10-CI-1101 (2013): Plaintiff alleged slip and fall at store. Successfully obtained dismissal due to statute of limitations.
  • Higgs v. Easterling, et al., No. 3:11CV-P499 (W.D. Ky. 2013): Plaintiff, acting pro se, was a prison inmate who alleged federal and state law claims in connection with Hepatitis C treatment. We obtained summary judgment in favor of our physician client.
  • Hawks v. Does, No. 3:10CV-169 (W.D. Ky. 2013): Plaintiff was a represented prison inmate who alleged federal and state law claims in connection with Hepatitis C treatment while incarcerated. We obtained summary judgment in favor of our physician client.
  • Moses v. Baker, 798 F. Supp.2d 863 (E.D. Ky. 2011): We represented an insurer on an underinsured motorist coverage issue in an Ohio policy in this published federal court opinion and won summary judgment on two, independent bases. The court agreed with our arguments that an “other owned vehicle” exclusion precluded coverage and that the plaintiff failed to show that the decedent was a “resident relative” entitled to coverage under the policy.

PUBLICATIONS

Dittert, The Real Impact of Hollaway v. Direct General Ins. Co., Fayette County Bar Association Bar News (2017, Issue 1)

DeSimone, DRI Deposition Manual, Editor in Chief (January 2016)

DeSimone, Author of chapter in DRI Deposition Manual: Preparing the Client for Depositions (January 2016)

DeSimone, Author of chapter in DRI Deposition Manual: Using Depositions in Court Proceedings, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 (January 2016)

DeSimone, FRE 609: A Very Powerful ToolTrials & Tribulations, the Newsletter of the DRI Trial Tactics Committee (December 2015)

Wurdock, Defending Corporate Depositions: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Corporate Representative Depositions and the Apex Doctrine, The DRI Deposition Manual, pp. 159-175 (2015).

Jones and Dittert, Litigating the Declaratory Judgment Action, DRI’s In House Defense Quarterly (Fall 2015)

Dittert, Navigating the Unspoken Rules of Fed. R. Civ. Pro 25(a), DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar newsletter (March 2013)

DeSimone, Deciphering Attorney-Client and Work Product Privileges, Common Defense, a publication of the Kentucky Defense Counsel (November 2013)

Jones and Dittert, A Defense Perspective on Loss of Consortium Claims, Kentucky Justice Association: The Advocate (May/June 2010)

 

SEMINARS

DeSimone, Voir Dire and Advanced Jury Selection Strategies, presentation for the National Business Institute’s Advanced Issues in Personal Injury Litigation CLE (March 2016)

Jones, Consent Judgments & Forbearance Agreements, Kentucky Justice Association’s Bad Faith in Kentucky CLE (2016)

Jones, Professional Responsibility: Dealing with Ethical Challenges in Your Practice, KBA Kentucky Law Update CLE (2015)

Jones, Voir Dire and the Art of Asking the Right Questions, Voire Dire & Jury Selection National Business Institute CLE (May 2015)

Jones, Jury Selection Strategy, Voire Dire & Jury Selection National Business Institute CLE (May 2015)

Jones, Social Media Use and Other Complex Jury Issues, Voire Dire & Jury Selection National Business Institute CLE (May 2015)

Jones, Ethical Considerations in Jury Selection, Voire Dire & Jury Selection National Business Institute CLE (May 2015)

Jones, Practical Tips for Jury Selection in Civil Litigation, Kentucky Bar Association’s Kentucky Law Update CLE (2014)

 

Attorneys In This Field