Court Opinion

ID: 9656618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:52:25.872878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:33.714369
License: Public Domain

BARBER, Judge,
dissenting by separate opinion:
If Kentucky follows the logic of the majority in fact situations like we have sub judice or in hit and run accidents, injured policyholders who pay an extra premium for underinsured coverage would never be eligible for the protection they purchased.
If Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hunt, supra, only addresses the situation of hearsay evidence why did the court quote language from Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schmid, supra, establishing a standard to determine an inference of no insurance.
I believe the goal of the MVRA would be better served if persons in situations like we have here are afforded coverage rather than denied; therefore, I dissent.