Opinion ID: 2460217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: directed verdict on claim for permanent impairment to earn money

Text: Appellant claims error in the trial court's granting a directed verdict dismissing her claim for permanent impairment to earn money. The ruling was premised on Appellant's failure to comply with CR 8.01(2) which provides, in part: When a claim is made against a party for unliquidated damages, that party may obtain information as to the amount claimed by interrogatories; if this is done, the amount claimed shall not exceed the last amount stated in answer to interrogatories. In the first set of interrogatories propounded to Appellant, Interrogatory No. 3 requested, Itemize all expenses and losses for which you are claiming damages herein, including, but not limited to, medical expenses and lost wages, if any. In response, Appellant submitted an attachment including an itemization of medical bills, as well as general claims for other damages including pain and suffering and permanent impairment to earn money. However, no monetary figures were provided for the general claims. Similarly, in response to Appellee's request to supplement interrogatory answers, Appellant again only made reference to her general claim, which failed to provide specific information about the amount claimed for permanent impairment to earn money. Appellant argues that she was not aware or required to specify a specific monetary figure for permanent impairment to earn money. She further contends that the doctrine of ejusdem generis applies to Interrogatory No. 3 and that what the question required were only those items of special damage known to Appellant, such as medical expenses and lost wages. Steinfeld v. Jefferson County Fiscal Court, 312 Ky. 614, 229 S.W.2d 319 (1950). We find this argument to be without merit. Based upon Appellant's inclusion of a general claim for permanent impairment to earn money, there can be no doubt that Appellant understood that the plain meaning of the interrogatory sought information concerning all damages. The question clearly expressed an intention not to be limited to the specific items mentioned, but rather requested all damages, including but not limited to ... the specific items enumerated. CR 8.01(2) was construed in National Fire Insurance Company v. Spain, Ky.App., 774 S.W.2d 449 (1989), in which the Court of Appeals stated: The last sentence of the rule clearly states, in effect, that if a claim for unliquidated damages is made, the party against whom the claim is made may seek information as to the amount of the claim by interrogatories. If this is done, the amount claimed shall not exceed the last amount stated in answer to interrogatories. Id. at 451; See also 6 Bertelsman & Phillips, Kentucky Practice, CR 8.01, Comment 5 (4th ed.1984). The court in Spain, supra , held that because the appellee never undertook to provide the amounts of several items of damages in response to interrogatories, the appellee was precluded from recovering those sums at trial. Id. Here, Appellant was requested in two sets of interrogatories to specify all damages, including permanent impairment to earn money. As she failed to do so, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a directed verdict dismissing Appellant's claim for those damages.