Court Opinion

ID: 9621314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:56:30.011191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:02.466880
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the Opinion of the Court, but for the reason that the resolution of the “punitive damages” issue was mandated by the “election of remedies” doctrine. Young v. Hammond, 139 S.W.3d 895, 903 (Ky.2004). One cannot prevail on separate claims for the same conduct. Here the Plaintiff asked for and received interest and attorneys fees per KRS 304.39-220. The separate claim for punitive damages was for the same conduct. Once relief under KRS 304.39-220 is requested it must take precedence. Were the claim for punitive damages based on differing conduct, the result would be different.
*558Nor do I adopt the statement in this opinion that declares, “[t]he Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparation Act, ..., provides an exclusive remedy where an insurance company wrongfully delays or denies payment of no-fault benefits.” Insurance companies are subject to the same rules of conduct as others. To date, we have not declared they are “statutorily free” from common law claims of “bad faith” and I do not believe this to be the intent of this statement in this case.