Court Opinion

ID: 9664394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:18:12.721101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:06.011017
License: Public Domain

ABRAMSON, Justice,
Concurring in Result Only:
I cannot conclude on these facts that the KERS personnel either misled Mr. Lawson or were negligent in the handling of his retirement process. In my view, this case revolves around the proper construction of KRS 61.590(3) and, more specifically, the word “issued”. That term is susceptible to more than one construction. In Kentucky, a state worker’s retirement rights constitute an “inviolable contract.” KRS 61.692; Jones v. Board of Trustees, 910 S.W.2d 710 (Ky.1995). A general principle of contract construction is that any ambiguity should be construed against the drafter, which in this ease is obviously the Commonwealth. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Kenway Contr., Inc., 240 S.W.3d 633 (Ky.2007) (insurance contract); Board of Regents of Kentucky State University v. Gale, 898 S.W.2d 517 (Ky.App.1995) (employment contract with government agency). Mr. Lawson is entitled to the most favorable construction of the statute and is therefore entitled to relief on these facts.
MINTON, C.J., joins.