Court Opinion

ID: 9690593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:25:05.258087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:59.943317
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by
Justice WINTERSHEIMER.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the City of Louisville is expressly exempt from providing security for the payment of basic reparation benefits. Subsection 6 of KRS 304.39-080(5), explicitly provides that the entities enumerated in § -080(3), that is, the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, municipal corporations, and public agencies may provide security under § - 080(6), however, § -080(5) clearly distinguishes between those enumerated exceptions and all other persons who shall continuously provide such security.
It is obvious that the General Assembly chose to treat governmental entities, including the City of Louisville, differently when it enacted the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparation Act. The plain language of the statute exempts the City of Louisville from the necessity of providing security for basic reparation benefits because it is a municipal corporation under statute. The effect of the majority decision in this case is to overrule the exemption provisions and in effect revise the statute by judicial fiat. Clearly this is impermissible because it violates the fundamental principle of statutory construction, that is, that an unambiguous statute is to be. applied as written.
The facts in this case are almost identical with those in Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Brown, 887 F.Supp. 974 (W.D.Ky. 1995), a case involving the United States Postal Service. See also Lafferty v. United States, 880 F.Supp. 1121 (E.D.Ky.1995). The decision of the City not to become a reparations obligor was a proper exercise of its lawful discretion for which it cannot be otherwise held hable to State Farm for basic reparation benefit reimbursement. The primary purpose of the Act is to protect accident victims, not their insurers. The Act sets out its own policy and purpose and says nothing about protecting the subrogation rights of insurers. KRS 304.39-010. There is no compelling public policy justification for allowing the insurance company to recover from either the City or Alpiger. The majority decision in this case could impact local governments at ah levels in Kentucky. It is a matter of important statutory construction and application and has been incorrectly decided.
I would reverse the Opinion of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court.