Opinion ID: 2103051
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the court of appeals erred reversing the trial court's ruling regarding the deduction of brb from the judgment

Text: The trial court deducted from the damages awarded by the jury only the $333.45 of BRB actually paid to Appellant, rather than the full amount of $20,000 in available BRB. It is not clear from the record why KSBA, as reparation obligor, paid only $333.45 in BRB, but there is no doubt that a substantial factor was the controversy over whether all of Appellant's injuries were caused by the bus accident. The jury verdict resolved that issue in Appellant's favor and found damages in a sum far exceeding the available BRB. The Court of Appeals held that the judgment must be offset by the entire $20,000.00 in available BRB. Its decision was based upon KRS 304.39-060(2), which provides: Tort liability with respect to accidents occurring in this Commonwealth and arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle is abolished for damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease to the extent the basic reparation benefits provided in this subtitle are payable therefor, or that would be payable but for any deductible authorized by this subtitle, under any insurance policy or other method of security complying with the requirements of this subtitle, except to the extent noneconomic detriment qualifies under paragraph (b) of this subsection. Citing several authoritative decisions [3] in support of its interpretation of the statute, the Court of Appeals held that KRS 304.39-060(2) abolishes Appellant's tort claim to the extent that reparations benefits are payable therefor. The Court of Appeals also concluded Appellant could not avail herself of relief which maybe found in Slone v. Caudill, 734 S.W.2d 480 (Ky.App.1987) and Henson v. Fletcher, 957 S.W.2d 281 (Ky.App.1997) (holding in certain circumstances the judgment should be reduced only by the amount of BRB actually paid rather than the total amount of BRB payable), because she had presented insufficient evidence of KSBA's refusal to pay her BRB claims, that she had provided no evidence that workers' compensation had not covered those claims, and had presented no evidence that KSBA had failed to pay BRB after the exhaustion of her workers' compensation benefits. Much is made in the arguments of the parties about whether KSBA denied payment of Appellant's BRB claim and whether Appellant failed to submit claims for coverage. Appellant asserts that she sought payments of additional medical expenses under BRB, but KSBA denied them because of the active issue over whether the injuries she claimed, including the knee replacement surgery, were caused by the bus accident. KSBA contends that Appellant failed to pursue her claim to the maximum available BRB under the KSBA policy. If the appropriate reparation obligor is not forthcoming in paying basic reparation benefits to the statutory maximum, the injured party has a remedy under the Act to collect them. Dudas, 652 S.W.2d at 870. See KRS 304.39-210, KRS 304.39-220, and KRS 304.39-160. If such evidence (i.e., whether Appellant requested payments and whether KSBA denied them) was essential to the factual findings needed to resolve the BRB offset issue, the trial court was the proper place to present it. It is not within the province of this Court, or the Court of Appeals, to resolve factual disputes material to the resolution of a claim. See Whicker v. Whicker, 711 S.W.2d 857 (Ky.App. 1986) (Where the trial court fails to make required findings and no request is made for such findings, the issue will not be considered on appeal). The issue did not arise until KSBA moved under CR 59.05 to amend the judgment to deduct the remaining available BRB. In response, Appellant asserted, that under Slone and Henson , the offset was properly limited to $333.45. Neither party requested the opportunity to present evidence. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and without rendering findings of fact. What the Court of Appeals has characterized as insufficient proof is, in effect, the absence of factual findings by the trial court needed to resolve the issue. Regardless of which party had the burden of proof on the issue of the proper amount of the offset, once the trial court entered its order on that issue with no findings of fact, it became the burden of the party aggrieved by that order to request that the court make a recitation of the essential facts upon which it based its decision. KSBA did not do so. CR 52.04 provides: A final judgment shall not be reversed or remanded because of the failure of the trial court to make a finding of fact on an issue essential to the judgment unless such failure is brought to the attention of the trial court by a written request for a finding on that issue. KSBA's argument that Appellant cannot rely upon Slone and Henson , depends, in, this Court as in the Court of Appeals, upon a finding of fact that was never made by the trial courtwhether Appellant followed the correct process to claim the full measure of BRB available to her. CR 52.04 does not permit the trial court to be reversed for failure to make a finding on an essential fact unless a party has expressly requested such a finding. The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's decision on the BRB because of a disputed issue of fact, when the matter was never brought to the attention of the trial court. We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals on that point and reinstate the decision of the trial court to deduct from the judgment the actual BRB payment of $333.45 rather than the full $20,000.00 of available BRB.