Opinion ID: 1785571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: claim for lost wages

Text: Troxell argues that the Court of Appeals erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the trial court in holding that Farm Bureau should have been entitled to a directed verdict as to his claim for lost wages. We disagree. Pursuant to KRS 304.39-210(1), to recover benefits for work loss, Troxell was required to provide Farm Bureau with reasonable proof of the fact and amount of loss realized. Work Loss is defined as: [L]oss of income from work the injured person would probably have performed if he had not been injured, and expenses reasonably incurred by him in obtaining services in lieu of those he would have performed for income, reduced by any income from substitute work actually performed by him. KRS 304.39-020(5)(b). In its opinion, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the quantum of proof necessary to establish reasonable proof of the fact and amount of loss realized is a question of first impression in this jurisdiction. In recognizing that the proof necessary to establish a claim for lost wages is the same as that necessary to establish a claim for medical bills, KRS 304.39-210(1), the court cited State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Outlaw, Ky.App., 575 S.W.2d 489 (1978), which provides: A proof of loss is intended to provide insurance companies with an opportunity to investigate the claim and to make an intelligent estimate of the company's rights and liabilities before becoming obligated to pay the claim.... [T]he statement of the claimant alone would not, as a matter of law, satisfy the statutory requirement of reasonable proof of the fact and amount of loss realized. ... The statute placed the burden on the claimant to provide reasonable proof of the fact and amount of loss realized. Id. at 493. Turning now to the case before us, we agree with and adopt the language of the Court of Appeals opinion, which states: Applying this reasoning to the facts presented in the instant case, it is clear that Troxell failed to present any reliable proof of his work loss. Generally, a person would produce copies of tax returns to show the amount of income earned during previous years. KFBM stresses Troxell's lack of this type of evidence heavily. While income tax returns tend to present fairly reliable evidence in most instances, claimants are not required to prove lost wages in this manner. In some instances, such as here, a claimant may have so little income that he is not required to file a tax return. At the same time, evidence such as Troxell proffered to prove his lost wages is wholly insufficient. The only evidence produced was self-serving. Receipts prepared by Troxell's wife months after the fact and signed by relatives stating that Troxell had been paid for work performed on various automobiles is the only evidence Troxell offered, aside from his own testimony. KFBM had more than a reasonable basis in law and fact to deny the claim. Wittmer v. Jones, Ky., 864 S.W.2d 885, 890 (1993). While we are not prepared to say that handwritten receipts cannot constitute proof of wages earned, in this case, where the receipts were prepared only after KFBM requested some proof of lost wages and months after the work allegedly was done, as a matter of law, this was insufficient evidence to merit an instruction authorizing an award of lost wages. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals decision that there was insufficient proof presented to support Troxell's claim for lost wages.