Holsclaw v. Kenilworth Ins. Co.
| Citation | 644 S.W.2d 353 |
| Parties | James W. HOLSCLAW, Appellant, v. KENILWORTH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1982 |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
William A. Miller, Sr., Louisville, for appellant.
J. David Niehaus, J.D. Raine, Jr., Louisville, for appellee.
Before HOGGE, WILHOIT and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ.
Patricia Holsclaw was driving a vehicle insured by the appellee, Kenilworth Insurance Company, when the vehicle left the road and overturned. As a result of Miss Holsclaw's death from the accident, Kenilworth paid certain funeral and medical expenses. Subsequently, her father, James Holsclaw, filed suit in Jefferson Circuit Court against Kenilworth, seeking survivor's replacement services loss and survivor's economic loss. The Jefferson Circuit Court rendered a summary judgment for Kenilworth, and Mr. Holsclaw appeals.
The material facts of this case are, as the appellant indicates, simple and undisputed. At the time of Miss Holsclaw's death at age 27, she was residing with her father and working for Holsclaw Transfer Company, a Kentucky Corporation. Mr. Holsclaw does not base his claim for survivor's benefits on Miss Holsclaw's contributions to the home or to personal needs of the family. (She did not pay for room or board and there is no claim as to other contributions). Rather, the claim is based on testimony that Miss Holsclaw worked for Holsclaw Transfer Company, of which her father was the sole shareholder, at a salary which was less than the true value of her services, as indicated by the fact that she had replaced a more highly paid employee. Miss Holsclaw worked for the company for less than the normal salary because of her relationship with her father and due to the expectation of eventually inheriting the business. As a result of her death, there has been a loss of services, and some of the services she performed will have to be replaced at a higher cost.
The following definitions may be found in the Kentucky Revised Statutes for the terms "survivor's economic loss" and "survivor's replacement services loss.":
(d) "Survivor's economic loss" means loss after decedent's death of contributions of things of economic value to his survivors, not including services they would have received from the decedent if he had not suffered the fatal injury, less expenses of the survivors avoided by reason of decedent's death.
(e) "Survivor's replacement services loss" means expenses reasonably incurred by survivors after decedent's death in obtaining ordinary and necessary services in lieu of those the decedent would have performed for their benefit if he had not suffered the fatal injury, less expenses of the survivors avoided by reason of the decedent's death and not subtracted in calculating survivor's economic loss. [KRS 304.39-020]
In examining these definitions, we observe that the definition of survivor's economic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SFN Shareholders Grantor Trust v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...as a distinct entity "is unaffected by the fact that a majority of its stock may or may not be controlled by the same interests"); Holsclaw, 644 S.W.2d at 355 (sole shareholder cannot ignore corporate entity); Penn, 655 S.W.2d at 632 (sole shareholder owns only shares; title to corporate pr......
-
Walters v. Gill Indus., Inc.
...e Comercio de Cigarros, Ltda v. Buttes & Ashes, Inc. , 516 F. Supp. 2d 841, 847 (W.D. Ky. 2007) (citing Holsclaw v. Kenilworth Ins. Co. , 644 S.W.2d 353 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982) ). The corporate veil should not be pierced unless there is "(1) such a unity of ownership and interest that the separ......
-
Sudamax Industria E Comercio De Cigarros v. Buttes, Civil Action No. 1:05CV-60-M.
...piercing claim. 2. Piercing the Corporate Veil Courts are generally reluctant to disregard the corporate entity. Holsclaw v. Kenilworth Ins. Co., 644 S.W.2d 353 (Ky.App.1982); United States v. WRW Corp., 778 F.Supp. 919, 923 (E.D.Ky.1991). The corporate veil should not be pierced unless the......
-
Ivan Ware & Son, Inc. v. Delta Aliraq, Inc.
...Although courts are "reluctant to disregard the corporate entity," it is appropriate in some instances. Holsclaw v. Kenilworth Ins. Co., 644 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982). Courts have traditionally used the 'alter ego' formulation in determining when to pierce the corporate veil. The ......