Kentucky Supreme Court held in Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Tryon, 502 S.W.3d 585 (Ky. 2016) that UIM exclusion pertaining to owned-but-not-scheduled automobiles were enforceable under Kentucky law provided that the policy expressly and plainly apprised the insured of the exclusion. According to the Supreme Court, Kentucky’s public policy did not bar reasonable UIM exclusion provisions. Under Kentucky law, UM coverage was required by statute but UIM coverage was not. The Kentucky Supreme Court had previously ruled that a policy exclusion from the UIM definition of a vehicle available for the insured’s regular use was enforceable and the fact that UIM benefits were non-mandatory by nature under Kentucky law, the Kentucky Supreme Court found that Philadelphia Indemnity’s policy encompasses UIM exclusion provisions like the owned-but-not-scheduled exclusion.
A Respected Expert Witness And Authority On Insurance Law In The U.S.
- TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSURANCE POLICY’S APPRAISAL CLAUSE ALLOWS CAUSATION DETERMINATIONS by Jordan R. Plitt
- THE SPLIT LANDSCAPE REGARDING DEPRECIATION OF LABOR COSTS WHEN CALCULATING ACTUAL CASH VALUE by Jordan R. Plitt
- CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS REFUSES TO EXPAND THE TRIGGER FOR WHEN “CUMIS” COUNSEL IS REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2860 by Jordan R. Plitt
- DOES A WATER-BACKUP EXCLUSION INCLUDE SEWAGE? by Jordan R. Plitt