Robert O. Lukowsky

The case concerned the validity of a family or household exclusion clause in an automobile liability insurance policy that denied coverage for bodily injury to relatives living in the insured's household. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions and ruled that such exclusions are invalid under the state's Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA). The court reasoned that the MVRA establishes a compulsory insurance system requiring minimum security for both basic reparation benefits and tort liability arising from vehicle operation, with no permitted exclusions that would reduce coverage below statutory minimums of $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident for personal injury. Prior cases upholding family exclusions were overruled to the extent they conflicted with the MVRA, and the insurance commissioner's approval of the policy could not override the statute's public policy.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved the Commonwealth's appeal from a Fayette Circuit Court order dismissing a murder indictment against Larry Brown, who was charged in connection with a burglary and killing in Marion County. The dismissal stemmed from pre-trial rulings that barred the prosecution from granting immunity to accomplice witnesses who invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege, applying the former corroboration rule for accomplice testimony, and excluding the accomplices' confessions as substantive or impeachment evidence if they refused to testify. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Kentucky prosecutors lack statutory or constitutional authority to grant immunity to compel testimony, and that introducing confessions or calling witnesses known to invoke privilege would violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the state and federal constitutions. The reasoning emphasized that any immunity power requires legislative action, as supported by precedent and the absence of inherent prosecutorial authority, and that such evidence would unfairly prejudice the defense without cross-examination.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Kentucky's property valuation administrators (PVAs) and the Department of Revenue over whether the Department could direct the PVAs to increase their property assessments to match the Department's estimates of fair cash value after the PVAs had submitted their recapitulations. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the lower courts' decisions that had sided with the PVAs, holding that the Department has the authority to issue such directives and withhold salaries for noncompliance. The court's reasoning centered on statutory provisions establishing that PVAs are subject to the supervision and directions of the Department, including KRS 132.420 and KRS 133.040, which require assessments to comply with the Department's instructions and standards for fair market value.

taxesproperty

The case involved Franklin County property owners challenging increased 1980 real property tax assessments that ranged from 1% to 400% higher than 1979 values, claiming the changes violated the uniformity requirement of Section 171 of the Kentucky Constitution. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the owners and ordered use of the prior year's assessments, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed, holding that Section 171 governs only the uniformity of tax rates for property classes while Section 172 requires assessments at fair cash value, which inherently allows varying percentage increases based on prior underassessments. The court further reasoned that the owners failed to exhaust their administrative appeal remedies before the county Board of Assessment Appeals under KRS 133.120 before filing suit. It remanded the case with directions to dismiss the judicial action.

taxespropertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between parties over the amount of minimum royalties due under a mineral lease, which they submitted to arbitration. The arbitrators awarded the lessor $37,214.67, and the circuit court enforced this award. The Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence for an award below $75,000 and ordered that amount, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that arbitrator awards are not reviewable for sufficiency of evidence absent gross mistake amounting to fraud or misconduct. The core reasoning is that allowing courts to reexamine the evidence would substitute judicial judgment for the parties' agreed-upon arbitration process, undermining its finality.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved John Boulder, who was convicted in Fayette Circuit Court of first-degree assault and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, with both sentences enhanced under the persistent felony offender statute based on a prior 1976 assault conviction. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the assault conviction and ordered a new trial because the jury instructions improperly allowed conviction on either an intentional or wanton theory, but the evidence only supported the intentional theory, violating the requirement of a unanimous verdict. The court affirmed the handgun possession conviction but struck the PFO enhancement of that sentence and barred any future PFO enhancement of the assault charge using the same prior felony, reasoning that a defendant's felon status cannot be used repeatedly to establish an offense and then to enhance punishment under multiple statutes without specific legislative authority. The matter was remanded to reduce the handgun sentence to three years and retry the assault charge.

criminal lawgunsprocedure