March 2009
Supreme Court
Work Product - Witness Statements Taken by Insurance Adjustor Protected
Duffy v. Wilson, 289 S.W.3d 555 (Ky. March 19, 2009)
The Court reaffirmed that statements taken by an insurance adjustor before litigation are work product in that the fact that the insured puts the insurer on notice is sufficient to make the insurer anticipate litigation. The privilege was not defeated by proof that the adjuster told potential witnesses that he was not representing any particular side.
The fact that witness statements were taken at a time when the witnesses memory was fresher does not amount to substantial need so as to avoid the protection of work product.
Exclusive Remedy - Up the Ladder Immunity
Beaver v. Oakley, 279 S.W.3d 527 (Ky. Mar 19, 2009)
A person who functioned as a contractor on the job site was entitled to the defense of exclusive remedy even though there was not a written contract of the type one would ordinarily expect in a contractor-subcontractor context.
Court of AppealsDuty of Police Officer - Immunity
Wasson v. Morris , 2009 WL 563599 (Ky.App. Mar 06, 2009), ordered depublished August 19, 2009
A state trooper responding to a call did not have a special relationship with the local sheriff such as would be necessary to create a duty on the part of the sheriff to the state trooper. Even if there were a duty, the sheriff would be immune from suit in both his official and individual capacities.
|
|