RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 

TO BE PUBLISHED 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KENTUCKY 

SCHOOL BOARDS INSURANCE TRUST . . 

v. . ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS 

CASE NO. 2015-CA-001682-TG 

FRANKLIN. CIRCUIT COURT NO .. 14-CI-01080 

JOSEPH N. POPE, JR. DEPUTY 

REHABILITATOR OF THE KENTUCKY 

SCHOOL BOARDS 

INSURANCE TRUST WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION SELF-INSURANCE FUND; 

JOSEPH N. POPE, JR., DEPl.JTY 

REHABILITATOR OF THE KENTUCKY 

SCHOOL BOARDS 

INSURANCE TRUST· PROPERTY AND 

.LIABILITY SELF:_ INSURANCE FUND;. AND 

KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, 

INC. 

OPINION· OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS 

AFFIRMING 

APPELLANT 

APPELLEES 

Appell~t, Board of Trustees of the KentU:cky School Boards Insurance . · 

Trust (KSBIT), appeals from a decision of the.Franklin Circuit Court rejecting 

. its claim of governmental immunity and thus denying its motion for summary 

judgment. Appeliee, Joseph N. Pope, Jr., is the Deputy Rehabilitator of the . . . . 

Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust Workers' Compensation Self-
Insurance Fund and _the Deputy Reh_abiHtator of Kentucky School Boards 

Insurance Trust Property and Liability Self I:nsurance Fund. · 

The circuit court concluded that the KSBIT Board is not entitled to 

governmentai immunity because its "parent" eritity is not an agency of state. 

goverriinent that enjoys governmental immunity and it does. not perforrn a 

. function that is integral to state. government. The KSBIT Bo~rd appealed the 

circuit court's decision to ,the Court of Appeals. We granted Appellee's 

·uncontested CR 74.02(2) motion to tra:nsfer this case directly to this Court. \ 

. . . 

·Upon review, we agree that the KSBIT Board does not qualify_for governmental 

immunity and so we affirm the Franklin Circuit Court's order denying.· 

·summary judgment. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

The Boatd of-Trustees of the Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust 

manages.the self-insurance funds established to_provide workers' 

compensation insurance .and property and liability insurance to local public 

school districts that are members of the Kentucky School Board Association 

(KSBA). Prior to the involvement of the.Deputy Rehabilitator, KSBIT's 

.. responsibilities included the collection and man~gement of the Trust's funds, 

which are comprised of member contributions, policy dividends, and rate 

refunds; i~vestments and income thereon; and other .money and property- in 

the hands of the Trust in connection with its administration/KSBIT also. 

performed other duties required i~ the administratiqn of the Trust. KSBA 

2 
served as the administrator of KSBIT providing the day-to-day management of 

the. KSBIT funds until 2010. 

Two of KSBIT's self-insurance funds, the Workers' Compensation Fund 

and the Property and Liability Fund, operated at a deficit for many years. 

Eventually, the Kentucky Department of Insurance stepped in and directed 

KSBIT to cure the deficits or assess its member school boards additional fees to 

balance its accounts. In response, KSBIT entered into agreements with the 

Ken~ucky League of Cities (KLC) and the Kentucky League of Cities Insurance 

Services Association (KLCIS) to borrow money and to transfer the 

administration of the KSBIT fundsto those entities. Despite these ~fforts, the 

financial condition of KSBIT's insurance funds continued to deteriorate. KSBIT 

·wrote its last insurance policy during the 2012-2013 fiscal y~ar. In the latter 

part of 2013, KLC/KLCIS and. KSBIT filed a declaratory judgment action asking 

· the Franklin Circuit Court to force the Department of Insurance to assess . 

KSBIT's members for the additional money needed to overcome the deficits and 

repay the KLC/KLCIS loan. Ultimately, the Franklin Circuit Court placed the 

KSBIT Funds into rehabilitation. I 

The Deputy Rehabilitator filed suit against the KSBIT Board for 

. negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty of diligence and due 

1 The Deputy Rehabilitator assessed.KSBIT gtoup members an amount in 

excess of $45 million to fill the KSBIT Funds' financial deficit. The assessment did not 

include the approximately $8 million worth of notes from KLC/KLCIS. The Franklin 

Circuit Court has since ruled that the notes were not subject to repayi;n~nt. ' 

3 
care, and breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty.2 The KSBIT Board asserted a 

defense of governmental immunity and moved for summary judgment. After 

applying the two-prong test expounded upon in Comair, Inc. v; Lexington-

.J 

Fayette Urban County Airport' Corp~, 295 S.W.3d 91 (Ky._2009), the circuit court 

concluded that KSBIT did not qualify for governmental immunity. Specifically, 

the circuit court determined that KSBIT was created by KSBA, a nongovernmental entity. Since KSBA. had no governmental immunity, its progeny. 

KSBIT could not have immunity under the Comair test. The circuit court held 

. ' 

under the second prong of the ·.Comair analysis tha_t KSBIT's purpose of 

maintaining a self-insurance trust fund to provid_e its member organizations . 

(local sc_hool boards) with workers' compensation, and other insurance was not 

a function integral to state government. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, KSBIT asserts that the circuit court's Comair analysis was 

flawed for these reasons: 1) because the language of the Agreement and 

· Declaration of Trust that established KSBIT reveals that its true "parent" . . 

organization is not KSBA, as the Circuit court fourid, but is instead the several 

local school districts that comprise KSBA and opted to participate in KSBIT's 

insurance programs, and tho.se member school districts do have governmental 

immunity; and 2) because KSBIT's function of providing local public school 

. districts with statuto:r:ily-mandated workers' compensation insurance and 

2 _!(SBA and Kentucky.League of Cities are co-defendants in the still-pending 

circuit court action but are not parties to this interlocutory appeal. 

4 
. . 

property.ins1:1rance advances the governmental function of public education 

and is, therefore, a function integral to state government .. 

For reasons set forth below, we affirm tqe decision ·Of the Franklin Circuit · 

Court. 

II. ANALYSIS 

In Comair, this Court sifted through and digested decades of decisions · 

illustrating Kentucky courts' struggle to apply the concept of governmental 

immunity to public and quasi-public agencies outside the fundamental · 

·departments of state government. We concluded that two elements are decisive. 

The first element is whether the entity in question was created by a 

governmental agericy that enjoyed the cloak of governmental immunity .. "This 

inquiry can be as simple as looking at the 'parent' of the ·entity in question, i.e., 

was it created by the state or a county, or a city?" 295 S.W.3d at 99. The 

second element is whether the entity in question exercises a function that is 

"integral to ·state government." Id. (citing Gross v.·Kentucky Board of Managers· 

of World's Columbian Exposition, 49 S.W. 458, 459 (Ky. 1899); Kentucky Center 

for the Arts v. Berns, 801 S.W'.2d 327, 332 (Ky. 1990)). 

Comairs adaptation of a two-pronged test is consistent with our 

historical application of governmental immunity and it has proven to be· a 

workable solution to a complex and often confusing issue as seen, for. example, 

in Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc. v. Phirman, 504 S.W.3d 11 · 

(Ky. 2016), and in Coppage Construction. Co. v. Sanitation District No.· 1, 4S9 

5 
S.W._3d85S (Ky. 2015). {)ur reviewaccordingly proceeds with an examination 

· of the two elem.ents as they relate to KSBIT. 

A. The KSBiT Bo~rd was not created by local public school boards . 

. The KSBIT Board argues on appeal that it is immune from the claims of 

the Deputy Rehabilitator because it was created by locar public school boards 

which have traditionally and undisputedly enjoyed governmental immunity. 

The KSBIT Board claims tq have inherited the governmental immunity of its . . 

"parent" agencies. The irony is inescapable: KSBIT claims to have inherited the 

governmental immunity of the local public ·school boards whose insurance 

trust fun_ds the rehabilitator claims KSBIT negligently mismanaged·. KSBIT 

. . 

·posits no other entity as its progenitor, and so if it was not created by iocal. 

· P1:1blic school boards, it fails the first prong o_f the Comair test. · . 

. . The. Deputy Rehabilitator claims that th~ par~ntal entity of the KSBIT 

Board is not the local p:ublic school districts who seif-insured through the 

KSBIT trust, but is instead the Kentucky School Board Association (KSBA). 

. . . 

. KSBA is a private 50l(c)(4) non-profit c9rporation. According to its ·articles of 

·. incorporation, mernbersl?-ip· in KSBA is open to public school districts in .. · 

. Kentucky as well as privately funded schools and colleges. in the state with 

interests and views consistent. with KSBA's objectives and ·purposes. One of 

KSBA's stated purposes is to assist its members in me~ting "legal requirements 

for the. efficient delivery of educational _services to the public;" Obtaining 

·workers' compensation. coverage for_ school employees and property insurance 

.6 
· for school property are among the legal requirements of focal public school 

boards. See KRS 342.340, KRS 160.105. , 

The KSBIT Board was established in 1978 upon the execution of the 

Agreement and Declaration. of Trust (Trust Agreement). The founding parties 

identified in clause 1 of the Trust Agreement3 are: KSBA, seven. named . . 

individuals to serve as Trustees, and the Trust itself. None of the individual 

public school boards or school districts that comprise the· KSBA membership or 

participate in KSBIT's insurance programs are mentioned in the Trust 

Agreement. 

The Trust Agreement notes, in clauses ~ and 3 of the preamble, that 

"boards of education. in Kentucky are authorized to join together in a group· or 

groups for th~ purpose of providing self-insurance of various kinds" and that 

some members of KSBA "may deem it expedient to join fogether in purchasing 

·and procuring insurance coverage of various kinds or providing self-insurance." 

Clauses 4 and 5 of the Trust Agreement preamble declare that KSBA is 

"undertaking to furnish the leadership and guidance necessary to estal?Iish 

such [insurance] programs" and that "the :i:nost practical manner in which to 

establish and· administer these [insu~ance] programs is through a Trust created 

for. that purpose." 

3 Clause 1 of the Trust Agreement states: "This AGREEMENT AND 

DECLARATION OF TRUST :tnade ... by and between the Kentucky School Boards. 

Association (hereinafter referred to as 'KSBA' or 'Association') and [seven named 

individuals] as duly appqinted Trustees (hereinafter referred to collectively as 

'Trustees') and the Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust (hereinafter referred to as . . 

'Trust"), WITNESSETH:" 

7 
Article III of the Trust Agreement states the purpose of KSBIT · 

shall be: (1) to enable school districts and other tax supported 

educational agencies of Kentuckj ·who are members of the 

Association, to avail themselves of the benefits which will accrue to 

them in the forming of a group or groups to provide self-insurance · . ' . . ' 

. of various kinds or procure permitted insurance coverages of all . . 

kinds; and (2) to provide risk management services. 

The trial court provided two reasons for determining that KSBA, rather 

than the. local public school board's members, is KSBIT's parent organization. 

· First, the Trust Agreement language creating KSBIT directly ide!ltifies KSBA, 

rather than the individu~l member school districts, as the entity undertaking 

.. the task of creating KSBIT. SecondJ pursuant to the agreement, it is KSBA that 

. . . 

appoints the KSBIT trustees, three of whoni must be the president, immediate 

past president. and vi.ce-president of KSBA. 

The KSBIT Board acknowledges that individual public school boards are 

not actual parties to the Trust Agreement .. The Board challenges the trial 

court's reasoning by pointing out, based upon th~ language of the Trust 

. Agreement, that in creating KSBIT, KSBA was acting on behalf of, and through 

the authority of, its member school boards. KSBIT also notes.that Article X of· . . ' . 

the Trust Agreement explicitly provid_es that "the Trust is operated ... as agent 

and representative of the participating members only." 

We examine the ·genesis of_KSBIT to ascertain .its "parental." entity 

beginning upon the same path followed by the trial court: the Trust Agreement 

which created KSBIT~ The Trust Agreement is a contract, and is therefore 

subject to the rules of contract construction. In interpreting a contract, we 

8 
first determine as a matter of law whether the contract is ambiguous: A 

contract written in clear and unambiguous language is not subject to 

' 

iriterpretation or construction and must be enforced according to its terms. 

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Conrad, 107 S.W.2d 248, 250-251 (Ky. 1937). 

In the absence of ambiguity, ... a court will interpret the 

contract's terms by assigning language its ordinary meaning and 

without resort to extrinsic evidence. A contract is ambiguous if a 

·reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or· 

inconsistent interpretations. 

Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, Inc. v. Dunaway, 49~ S.W.3d 691, 694-695 

(Ky. 2016) (citations and quo~ations omitted). 

The terms of the Trust Agreement cited to show whether KSBA or the 

public scJ!ool boards being insured through KSBIT are the true progenitors of 

KSBIT are not ambiguous. The plain language of the Trust Agreement that · 

created KSBIT identifies only KSBA, KSBIT, and the Trustees. If the Trust 

Agreement can be regarded as KSBIT's birth certificate_, then those parties are 

the parents. The language of the Trust Agreement also clearly expresses 

KSBA's leadership in undertaking to create KSBIT. The fact that it did so as a 

serv~ce to its members does not equate its actions to the actions of individual · 

public school boards. KSBA is not the alter ego or the surrogate of its . 

members, antj. so KSBA's action upon the Trust Agreement, "undertaking to 

furnish the leadership and guidance ne-cessary to establish such [insurance] 

programs,'' cannot be attributed as the action of the many local school boards 

that comprise its membership. 

9 
The Trust Agreement significantly fails to mention any public school 

board as a creator of the Trust. The document is not executed by any focal 

public school board. Of everi more significance is the fact that the member 

school boards have no inherent right to participate in KSBIT':;; insurance 

programs. The Trust Agreement requires local public school bofil.ds to apply 

for and gain acceptance to participate in KSBIT's insurance programs. It is 

difficult to conceive_ that local school boards having no right to participate in 

KSBIT ate the entities that created KSBIT. 

The Trust Agreement's plain and unambiguous langliage reveals that 

KSBA, an incorporate_d legal entity, created KSBIT for the benefit of its 

. members. The fact that K~BIT was created for local public school -boards does 

not go so far as to establish that KSBIT was created by local public school 

boards. No plausible reading of Trust Agreement supports the assertion that 

KSBA's school board members created KSBIT. 

Regardless .of the terms of the Trust Agreement, the. KSBIT Board ass~rts · ' ' ' 

that because the res of the insurance trusts was funded by payments of 

participating school boards using state-appropriated moriies, thos~ 

participating school boards must be regarded as KSBIT's "parents" for 

purposes of immunity analysis. KSBIT cites Franklin County v. Malone, 957 

S.W.2d 195 (Ky~ 1997),4 as support for this argument. 

4 Overruled on other grounds by Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001). 

' 10 
In Malone,_ an in:giate at the Franklin County Jail committed suicide. 

The inmate's estate filed suit against several governmental entities including_ 

Franklin County, the members ·of the Franklin County Fiscal Court, various · 

other Franklin County officials, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and a state 

trooper. ·Against the backdrop of negligence _claims, the estate claimed that 

Franklin County's participation in a self-insurance fund to 'cover liabilitY 

claimss against the county constituted a waiver of its claim to governmental 

immunity. Rejecting the plaintiffs arguments, this Court held that 

"participation in a self-in~urance _fund is not an implied waiver of immunity" 

and that "[p]articipation in a self-insurancb fund pursuant to an inter~local 

cooperation act does not give rise to an implied waiver of sovereign)mmunity." · 

Id. at 203-204. 

With respect to a waiver of immunity, in Malone this Court distinguished 

the expenditure of county money to pay_ the premium for a commercial liability 

insurance policy from· the contribution of county money into a self-insurance 

trust fund. Id. at 204. The KSBIT Board relies upon that distinction to 

support its claim of jmmunity. 

The-K~BIT Board's reliance upon Malone is misplaced; We are mindful 

that the instant case does not involve any claim of negligence or wrongdoing by 

a local public school board; the clain:i here is directly against the KSBIT Board 

s The specific self-insurance trust involved was the Kentucky All Lines Fund 

operated by the Kentucey Association of Counties authorized pursuant to KRS 

65.150(3) under the authority of KRS 65.210 et seq., the Inter_;local Cooperation Act. 

11 
for its alleged mismanagement of th~ Trust. We see n_othing in Mafone that 

. . 

remotely suggests that, as the repository of the self-insurance funds, the KSBIT 

Board cannot ·be sued for mismanaging the. funds because it has the same 

governmental immunity as the public entities contributingfunds it oversees .. 

Moreover, Malone addressed the i~sue of whether governmental entities, 

such as Franklin County and the members of its. Fiscal Court, which 

unquestionably ha~e governmental im~unity, waived their immunity at least to . . 

the extent of the funds they placed in a self...:insuraiice program. The question 

before us in this _case is not whether the public school boards waived their . 

immunity by pa,rticipating in KSBIT. Malone holds that pu·blic entities with 

governmental immunity do not lose that im·m';lnity when they participate in· a 

self-insurance fund. Malone does not hold that the administrators of the self- · 

insurance f-μnd acquire the governmental immunity of their patrons. · 

We are satisfied that fr~m the language of the Trust-Agreement, the 

seminal instrument creating KSBIT, that the KSBIT Board was not created by . . . . 

the local public school boards that partidpate in ·KSBIT's insurance programs .. 

. . 

From our conclusion th~t the KSBIT Board is not the offspring of local public 

scl;lool.boards, it follows that the KSBIT Bo.ard does not }?.ave the gove~mental 

immu11ity accorded. to those gov~rnmental bodi~s. We next consider the s~cond 

prong of the Comair analysis: whether the KSBIT Board serves a function 

· integral to state government. 

12 
B. The KSBIT Board does not serve a function integral to state 

government. 

KSBIT describes its role in providing insurance for public school boards 

as a governmental fu:μction bec;;i.use Kentucky school boards are mandated. to 

carry workers' compensation insurance and property insurance, and they can . . . . 

satisfy that obligation by participating in KSBIT. We do not agree with that 

.,I 

analysis. 

As we held in. Yanero v~ Davis, "[l]ocal school boards fulfill a 

governmental function of state government by providing public education 

within a particular geographical area." 65 S.W.3d 510, 526 (Ky. 2001) (quoting . . . 

Cullinan v. Jefferson County, 418 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Ky. 1967)). To.be more 

precise in light of Comairs two-prong test, we would say that local public 

school boards perform an integral state .function by providing education for 

children and others situated within their respective geographic areas .. 

· However,. the fact that local school boards, like private employers, must 

have workers' compensation coverage and other kinds of insurance does not 

transform the acquisition of that insurance into a governmental function. 

Providing or obtaining insurance, even though a self-insurance progr8;m, is not 

providing education; Innumerable things necess.arily contribute to the a~ility. 

of the school .boards to fulfill their governmental function, but the entities that 

supply those things do not themselves perform an integral state function. 

To determine whether an entity such as KSBIT performs ari integra) state 

function, we examine two elements: 1) "whether its function iS 'governmental' 

13 
. . . 

as opposed to. proprietary," and 2) "whether it is a matter of 'statewide' 

concern." Coppage, 459 S.W.3d at 862. 

Providing employers with workers' compensation coverage or managing a 

self-insurance fund that enables employers to meet their workers' 

compensation requirement is not a function integral to .state government; it is · 

. . 

not a governmental function at all. Workers' compensation coverage through 

insurance and self-Insurance pools is conduc.ted almost exclusively by the 

private seCtor anc;l is clearly a proprietary function. Even if KSBIT could be. 

said to serve the public purpose of serving public· sch_o9l boards, as we 

forewarned in CQppage, "not every 'public purpose' qualifies as an 'integral 

state function.' If that we·re the case, sovereign immunity would extend far 

beyond its current constraints, reaching virtually every local government 

agency fulfilling a perceived 'public purpose."' Id. 

. Th~ KSBIT Board is not.ari integral part of state government; it does not . . . . . 

fit "within regular. patterns of administrative organization and structure"-~f 

state government. Berns, 801 S.W.2d at 332 _{"[I]mmunity should extend only 

. to 'departments, boards or agencies that are such integral parts of state 

government as) to come with~n regular patterns o(admi~istrative organiZation . . . 

a~d structure."') (quoting Kentucky Region Eight v. Commonwealth, 507 S.W.2d : . ' . . . . 

489, 491 {Ky. 1974)). 

·Performing the same business activity that is ordinarily accomplished by 

private individuals or _business corporations is not engaging in a governmental 

·function. YanerQ, 65 S.W.~d at 51:9-520 {citing 83 L.Ed. 794, 804-05). KSBIT 

14 

r 
"performs substantially the. same functions as any private business engaged in 

the [insurance] business." Berns, BOl S.W.2d at 331. 

KSBIT cites Breathitt County Board of Education v. Prater, 292 S.W.3d 

883 (Ky. 2009), as an example where a service in ai~ of the educational mission 

of a local school board was deemed to be the performance of a governmental , 

function. The local school board iri Prater provided on-site housing to the 

person serving as night watchman and groundskeeper. A social visitor to the 

property was injured and sued the school board. ·The v_isitor argued that the 

school board was not immune from suit because providing on~campus housing 

was proprietary in nature. We analyzed the facts under the theory that 

"education is an integral aspeCt of state government and that activities in ditect 

furtherance of education will be deemed governmental rather th.an proprietary." , 

Id. at 887 (citing Yanero, 65 S.W.3d 510; Withers v. University of Kentucky, 939 

S.W.2d 340 (Ky.1997); Autry v. Western Kentucky University, 2_19 S .. W;3d 713 

(Ky. 2007)). We :resolved the issue in favor of immunity, reasoning that the 

school board provided the groundskeeper w~th housing, not in the proprietary 

role of commercial landlord, "but to further its educational mission by 

protecting the facilities where that mission is carried out." Id. at 888. In other 

words, the watchman/ groundskeeper was not housed on campus so that the . . 

school board could rent out the house as a proprietary landlord; the 

watchman/ groundskeeper was hou·sed on campus so that he was always 

available to protect school property. 

15 
The Board argues-that, like the housing provided in Prater, KSBIT was 

. . 

not created for the purpose of participating in the commercial insurance 

market, but was instead created to provide local school boards with cheaper 

insurance coverage than was otherwise available. The differen.ce between 

Prater and the present .case is clear·. A private landlord could not serve the 

school board's need to have a riight watchman housed on the school grounds; 

obvio.usly only the school board, as the owner of the property, could do that. 

. . 

Requiring (~r allowing) the watchman to live on school property did not put the 

school boc:i.rd in the proprietary role of a landlord. In contrast to that, KSBIT 

was eff~ctively a participant in the_ insurance market; providing its members 

the same "product" available from and ordinarily provided by nongovernmental entities. 

Finally, we note that KSBIT's function is not a matter of statewide 

concern. We do not imply that KSBIT's service is not important. But, the 

analysis is to determine if it performs a function integral to state government. 

Unlike the airport board in Comair which provides essential air transport 

infrastructure. which cannot be provided by private entities to meet Kentucky's 

commercial, industrfal, and public transportation needs, KSBIT provides 

· insurance protection readily available frorri a number of private. sources. 

KSBIT compares more closely to the substance abuse programs provided by the 

area development district in K~ntucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc . 

. v. Phinnan, 504 S.W.3d 11 (Ky. 2016), which operates for the benefit of a 

discrete group. 

16 
KIS~IT does not satisfy the elements required for concluding.it serves an 

integral state function. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For reasons stated above, we affirm the order of the Franklin Circuit. 

Court's denying summary judgment to the KSBIT Board. based upon the . 

. grounds of governmental immunity. This case· is remanded to Franklin Circuit 

Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 

·All sitting. All concur. 

COUl'lSEL FOR APPELLANT: 

Douglas L. Mcswain 

William Craig Robertson Ill 

Sharon Leslie Gold 

Courtney Ross Samford 

Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP 

250 West Main Street, Suite 1600 

Lexington, KY 40507 -1746 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE JOSEPH N. POPE JR, DEPUTY REHABILITATOR 

OF THE KENTUCKY SCHOOL BOARDS INSURANCE TRUST PROPERTY AND 

LIABILITY SELF-INSURANCE FUND, AND JOSEPH N. POPE, JR. DEPUTY. 

REHABILITATOR OF THE KENTUCKY SCHOOL BOARDS 

INSURANCE TRUST WORKERS'.COMPENSATION SELF-INSURANCE FUND: 

Perry Mack Bentley 

Todd Smith Page 

Sfoll, Keenon & Ogden, PLLC 

300 West Vine Street, Suite 21-00 

Lexington, KY 40507-lBOl 

Justin Drew Clark 

Stoll, Keenon & Ogden, PLLC 

17 
2000 PNC. :Pl8Za 

500 West Jefferson Street 

. Louisville, KY 40202 

Paul C. Harnice 

Sarah Jackson Bishop 

Stoll, Keenon & Ogden, PLLC 

20 l West Main Street, Suite A · 

. P.O~Box 5130 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Barry Lee Dunn 

· · Public Protection Cabinet · 

Office of Legal Services 

Emily Warf . 

Fultz Madtjox Dickens, PLC 

101 S. 5th Street, Suite 2700 · 

· Louisville, KY 40202 

. COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE, KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, 

INC.: 

Timothy A. Sturgill . 

K~ntucky Association of Coμnties, ·Inc. 

· General -Counsel 

400 -Englewood Dr. 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

18 
19