Court Opinion

ID: 9679243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:45:09.557637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:11.661489
License: Public Domain

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I disagree with the analysis and rationale provided therein. Summary judgment for Globe American was incorrect.
In my view, the application misled Moore to think that she had already purchased all the insurance that was required by law and that the uninsured motorist coverage was nothing more than another type of added coverage that she could purchase at her option similar to the un-derinsured motorist coverage that was lumped into the same provision in the application. I recognize that pursuant to KRS 304.20-020(1), uninsured motorist coverage is mandatory and not optional. In this case, the application contained an incorrect explanation. The matter of whether or not Moore would have purchased uninsured motorist coverage if she had not been given this erroneous explanation is a question of fact and should be determined by a jury.
Therefore, the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment to Globe American.
LAMBERT, C.J., joins this dissenting opinion.