RENDERED: OCTOBER 28, 2022; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2021-CA-1242-MR

TERESA BATES APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM KNOTT CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE KIM C. CHILDERS, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 21-CI-00088

TODD DAUPER; AXEL 

SMALLWOOD; AND STATE FARM 

MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEES 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: GOODWINE, MAZE, AND K. THOMPSON, JUDGES.

GOODWINE, JUDGE: Teresa Bates (“Bates”) appeals the October 12, 2021 order 

of the Knott Circuit Court dismissing Todd Dauper (“Dauper”), a claims specialist 

for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), as a party

for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
-2-

Bates and her husband, Carl, are both residents of Texas. They were 

involved in a motor vehicle collision involving another vehicle driven by Axel 

Smallwood (“Smallwood”) in Knott County, Kentucky on September 17, 2019. 

The Bateses presented a claim for bodily injury to Smallwood’s liability insurance 

carrier, Grange Insurance Company (“Grange”). After settling their claim with 

Grange, the Bateses filed a claim for underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits with 

their automobile insurance carrier, State Farm. The State Farm policy originated in 

the Bateses’ home state of Texas, where their vehicle is garaged and registered. 

Dauper, a Texas claims specialist, was assigned to the UIM claim. 

On April 26, 2021, the Bateses filed suit against Smallwood, State 

Farm, and Dauper. They alleged, in relevant part, Dauper acted in bad faith in 

violation of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practice Act (“UCSPA”) by 

failing to settle their UIM claim. State Farm then paid out $100,000, the full 

amount allowed by the UIM limits of the Bateses’ policy.1 Dauper, a resident of 

Texas, moved for dismissal, arguing Kentucky courts did not have personal 

1 Bates maintains she is entitled to “stack” the UIM benefits of the other vehicles listed on the 

insurance policy. State Farm argues Texas has jurisdiction over Bates’ claims and stacking is 

prohibited under that state’s law. Bates’ claims against Smallwood and State Farm remain 

pending before the trial court.
-3-

jurisdiction over him. Finding it lacked personal jurisdiction over him, the trial 

court dismissed Dauper as a party. This appeal followed.2 

The existence of personal jurisdiction is a question of law which we 

review de novo, giving no deference to the trial court’s decision. H.E.B., LLC v. 

Jackson Walker, L.L.P., 587 S.W.3d 333, 338 (Ky. App. 2019) (citing Appalachian 

Reg’l Healthcare, Inc. v. Coleman, 239 S.W.3d 49, 53-54 (Ky. 2007)).

On appeal, Bates argues the trial court erred in dismissing Dauper as a 

party based on lack of personal jurisdiction.3 

The trial court does not have personal jurisdiction over Dauper, a 

nonresident of Kentucky. Personal jurisdiction refers to a “court’s authority to 

determine a claim affecting a specific person[.]” Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 

733, 737 (Ky. 2007) (citation omitted). The purpose of KRS4 454.210, the 

Commonwealth’s long-arm statute, “is to permit Kentucky courts to exercise 

personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants while complying with federal 

constitutional due process.” Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Beach, 336 S.W.3d 

51, 54 (Ky. 2011) (citation omitted). 

2 Only Teresa, not Carl, appealed from the October 12, 2021 order of the trial court dismissing 

Dauper as a party.

3 Bates also argues the trial court inappropriately relied on Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance

Company v. Harris, 833 S.W.2d 850 (Ky. App. 1992), in dismissing Dauper. The record does 

not indicate the court relied on Harris. In fact, the order dismissing Dauper cites no case law.

4 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-4-

Determination of long-arm jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 

requires a two-step analysis. H.E.B., 587 S.W.3d at 338 (citation omitted). First, a 

court must determine whether the matter arises from activities of the defendant 

which fit into one of the categories enumerated in KRS 454.210. Id. For a claim 

to “arise from the activities” of a defendant, there must be “a reasonable and direct 

nexus between the wrongful acts alleged in the complaint and the statutory 

predicate for long-arm jurisdiction.” Beach, 336 S.W.3d at 59. If the statute does 

not apply, the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the 

claims against him must be dismissed. If the statute applies, the court must 

perform the second step of analysis, which requires a determination of whether 

exercising personal jurisdiction would offend the defendant’s federal due process 

rights. H.E.B., 587 S.W.3d at 338 (citation omitted). If not, the court has personal 

jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. Id.

Bates argues Kentucky courts have long-arm jurisdiction over Dauper 

under KRS 454.210(2)(a)3., which confers personal jurisdiction where a person 

has “[c]aus[ed] tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth[.]”5 

To support this claim, she alleges Dauper ignored her demands, failed to make any 

5 On appeal, Bates also claims KRS 454.210(2)(a)1. applies. However, she did not raise this 

argument before the trial court. It is well settled that a party is prohibited from raising an issue 

for the first time on appeal. Sunrise Children’s Services, Inc. v. Kentucky Unemployment 

Insurance Commission, 515 S.W.3d 186, 192 (Ky. App. 2016) (citation omitted). On this basis, 

we will not consider the merits of this argument. 
-5-

offers of settlement, and forced her to litigate her UIM claim, causing her injury 

under the UCSPA. Appellant’s brief at 6. 

Dauper is a resident of Texas and conducts his work as a claims

specialist for State Farm from Texas. He was assigned to Bates’ UIM claim 

because the insurance policy originated in Texas, the Bateses are residents of 

Texas, and the vehicle they were operating at the time of the collision is garaged 

and registered in Texas. None of the conduct Bates claims Dauper engaged in 

occurred in Kentucky. If Dauper ignored communications from Bates’ counsel in 

violation of the UCSPA, he did so in Texas. Because the alleged activities did not 

occur in Kentucky, KRS 454.210(2)(a)3. does not apply, and the trial court does 

not have personal jurisdiction over Dauper. On this basis, we need not consider 

the parties’ arguments regarding federal due process. 

Based on the foregoing, the order of the Knott Circuit Court is 

affirmed. 

MAZE, JUDGE, CONCURS.

THOMPSON, K., JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Timothy C. Bates

Hindman, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE TODD 

DAUPER:

Darrin W. Banks

Paintsville, Kentucky