Court Opinion

ID: 9655484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:12:01.589064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:18.972925
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, J.,
concurs in result only:
I concur with the majority’s opinion in result only as Earle v. Cobb, 156 S.W.3d 257 (Ky.2004) specifically cites two separate triggers for UM/UIM identification, (1) a “Coots” settlement, i.e., “when [the Insurance Co.,] invoked the ‘Coots’ procedure it should have been identified.” Id. at 262, and (2) participation at trial, i.e., the jury should know “who are the parties to the litigation where the [UIM] carrier elects to participate actively in the trial.” Id. at 260. As Kentucky Farm Bureau did not enter into a “Coots settlements,” or participate at trial, it was appropriate that it not be identified. Had it done either one, however, Cobb commands that it be properly identified as one of the parties.
As the majority opinion seems to suggest that both are required for identification, my concurrence is in result only as Kentucky Farm Bureau did neither.