Pierson v. Hartline
| Decision Date | 04 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-CA-1684-MR,2019-CA-1684-MR |
| Parties | MICHEAL PIERSON APPELLANT v. STEPHANIE HARTLINE AND LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT
Appellant Micheal Pierson ("Pierson") brings this appeal following the jury verdict rendered in Boone Circuit Court in favor of Appellee Stephanie Hartline ("Hartline") and that court's subsequent dismissal of Pierson's bad faith claim against Hartline's insurer, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual"), for violations of the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act ("KUCSPA"). The trial court ruled that evidence of Pierson's suspended license was admissible at trial under KRS1 186.640. In voir dire, approximately twenty potential jurors indicated that Pierson's suspended license would affect their ability to render a fair and impartial decision. Although Pierson's counsel moved to strike sixteen of those jurors, the trial court excused only eight for cause. Pierson then used his peremptory strikes to remove three more of those jurors from the panel.
Evidence of Pierson's suspended license was referenced throughout the trial. At the end of trial, the jury returned with a unanimous verdict for Hartline, and the trial court subsequently dismissed Pierson's claim against Liberty Mutual under CR2 12.02. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for a new trial and reinstate Pierson's bad faith claim pending the outcome of the new trial.
On December 28, 2014, Pierson and two friends, Torin DeJoy and Rob Fogelsong, went for a motorcycle ride westbound on KY 20/Petersburg Road, a two-lane road in Petersburg, Boone County, Kentucky. At the same time, Hartline and her family departed their home at around 4:30 p.m. on a trip to thegrocery store. Hartline and her two children rode in her 2015 Chevrolet Suburban eastbound on Petersburg Road, while her husband followed behind in his own vehicle.
Pierson and Hartline entered into a curve in the road at the same time, travelling in opposite directions, and collided. Upon impact, Pierson was thrown from his motorcycle into a roadside ditch. Pierson sustained devastating injuries, including multiple open fractures on his left arm and torn ligaments and menisci in his right knee. As a result, Pierson underwent surgery and to date has accumulated $72,542.90 in medical bills; he will require additional, future surgery.
The parties dispute which vehicle crossed the centerline, causing the collision. DeJoy, who rode his motorcycle behind Pierson, testified that he saw Hartline's Suburban cross the centerline into Pierson's lane of travel, causing the collision. Hartline's husband, Jeff, who drove his own vehicle behind his wife's, testified that Hartline was "entirely in her lane" at impact and said it "looked like the motorcycle failed to turn and just went straight" instead of curving to the right with the roadway. Both parties presented testimony from accident reconstruction experts interpreting the physical evidence at the scene of the accident, most notably an extended gouge mark beginning in Hartline's lane that Hartline argued was created by her vehicle's steering component that was damaged in the accident.
On October 26, 2016, Pierson filed a negligence claim against Hartline in Boone Circuit Court. On August 29, 2019, he amended that complaint to assert a bad faith claim against Hartline's insurer, Liberty Mutual, for alleged violations of the KUCSPA. The trial court bifurcated the claims against Liberty Mutual, and the claims against Hartline proceeded to trial.
Before trial, Pierson filed a motion in limine asking the trial court to preclude Hartline from presenting evidence regarding Pierson's suspended license. Pierson had testified during his pretrial deposition that his Florida motorcycle operator's license was suspended at the time of the crash for failure to pay fines.
Pierson argued that evidence of his suspended license was irrelevant pursuant to KRE3 401 and unduly prejudicial pursuant to KRE 403. Citing Rentschler v. Lewis, 33 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Ky. 2000), Pierson pointed out the Kentucky Supreme Court previously held that even under KRS 186.640, such evidence is generally inadmissible because it has no bearing on whether the person was negligently operating his or her vehicle in such a way as to cause the accident at issue.
On August 14, 2019, the trial court denied Pierson's motion, explaining:
As noted in Tipton v. Estill Ice Co., 132 S.W.2d 347 (1939), KRS 186.640 purports only to create a rebuttablepresumption, which serves only to require the party against whom it operates to introduce evidence to rebut it. If this burden of going forward is not satisfied, the party in whose favor the presumption operates is entitled to a directed verdict. If the burden is satisfied, the presumption disappears and plays no further role in the case. Rentschler[, 33 S.W.3d at] 520-21. The Court finds that KRS 186.640 creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence for a driver with a suspended license and, therefore, testimony as to the suspension of Plaintiff's license shall be allowed.
Pierson then filed a motion seeking clarification of the trial court's order regarding the timing of when such evidence could be produced. Specifically, Pierson argued that the evidence of the suspended license should not be allowed until Pierson had the opportunity to rebut the presumption, therefore precluding any admission or mention of the issue during voir dire, opening statements, or Pierson's case-in-chief.
On the morning of August 19, 2019, the first day of trial, the trial court took up Pierson's motion for clarification. Pierson argued that allowing such evidence would violate KRE 609 as Kentucky only allows evidence of a crime if it was "punishable by death or imprisonment for one (1) year or more under the law under which the witness was convicted." Pierson also challenged the constitutionality of KRS 186.640 as arbitrary and capricious in violation of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Kentucky Constitution, violating the separation ofpowers doctrine in Sections 27 and 28 of the Kentucky Constitution, and infringing on the exclusive rulemaking authority of the Court for practice and procedures in Sections 109 and 116 of the Kentucky Constitution.
Ultimately, the trial court rejected Pierson's arguments, ruling that "the statute says what it says." Video Record ("VR") 8/19/19 at 9:08:30-9:09:00. As the trial court interpreted the statute, KRS 186.640 allows reference to the suspended license at any point during the trial.
In light of the trial court's ruling, Pierson's counsel preemptively brought up the fact that Pierson was operating his motorcycle with a suspended license during voir dire. When asked whether Pierson would be "starting out on a level playing field" in light of the fact that he was "operating on a suspended license" on the day of the crash, a majority of the potential jurors indicated that there would be a "strike against [Pierson] starting out." VR 8/19/19 at 9:37:00-9:42:30. Ultimately, twenty jurors were called to the bench for further questioning about their admitted predisposition against Pierson. Pierson's counsel moved to strike sixteen of those jurors; of those sixteen, the trial court excused only eight for cause. The remaining eight jurors all expressed a bias against Pierson to some degree based on his suspended license.4 However, upon questioning at bench, eachof these jurors (122, 219, 383, 238, 55, 214, 399, and 226) confirmed upon further questioning that they could be fair and impartial and render a verdict based on all of the evidence presented.
Pierson used his three peremptory strikes to remove Jurors 219, 55, and 226, and indicated on his strike sheet that he would have removed three other jurors who ultimately served on the panel. This left five jurors sitting on Pierson's jury - Jurors 383, 238, 214, 122, and 399 - who had expressed doubts regarding the license suspension.
Both parties made reference to Pierson's suspended licensed throughout the trial. During opening statements, Hartline's counsel reminded jurors that Pierson VR 8/19/19 at 1:56:19-1:56:26. On cross-examination, Hartline's counsel asked DeJoy whether he knew if Pierson had a motorcycle license on the day of the accident. Hartline's counsel also questioned Pierson regarding his license suspension, eliciting testimony that Pierson knew his license was suspended and had still been operating his motorcycle during that suspension on a regular basis. Finally, Hartline's counsel returned to the subject at...
To continue reading
Request your trial