Reserve Ins. Co. v. Richards
| Decision Date | 31 October 1978 |
| Citation | 577 S.W.2d 417 |
| Parties | RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Movant, v. Kent RICHARDS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Henry A. Triplett, Hogan, Taylor, Denzer & Bennett, Louisville, for movant.
Robert L. Bertram, Jamestown, for respondents.
This appeal involves the question of timely notice in accordance with the provisions of a policy of insurance. The trial court determined the notice to be untimely and granted movant's motion for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeals found the timely notice issue to be a question of fact and reversed the granting of summary judgment.
We granted discretionary review and reverse.
As background to this controversy, on July 1, 1970, an employee of the Russell County Schools filed an action against respondents here in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The subject of the lawsuit was the mandatory maternity leave policy of the school board. The district court dismissed the action and was reversed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 1, 1972. Pursuant to the mandate of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States District Court entered judgment in the sum of $4,120 on December 1, 1972, against the school board.
On December 26, 1972, the respondents filed suit against the movant, Reserve, on a policy of liability insurance issued by Reserve to the Kentucky School Board Association. As members of that association, the respondents, the Russell County School Board and its members, were covered by the policy.
Respondents' complaint alleged:
"That on August 19, 1968, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiffs, a General Liability Policy No. XGA 001020, insuring the plaintiffs against acts or omissions of the Board and its members arising out of the performance of their duties."
Reserve answered, denying liability and pleading a lack of timely notice in accordance with the notice provisions of the policy which are as follows:
After answer Reserve propounded interrogatories to the respondents, in particular the following:
Prior to submission of the case on Reserve's motion for summary judgment, respondents' attorney filed an affidavit in opposition, in substance stating lack of prejudice to Reserve, that the Kentucky School Board actually knew of the United States District Court suit, although no written notice was given etc.
It is in this posture that the case was submitted to the trial court. Thus according to the record, the insurance policy had been delivered to respondents in 1968, there was no attempt to comply with the notice provisions of the policy until August 31, 1971, when the Kentucky School Board Association was notified some 13 months after suit was filed in United States District Court. The trial court then granted summary judgment in favor of Reserve.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, respondents interjected a new issue into the case. All of a sudden before the Court of Appeals, respondents argued as a fact that they were unaware of the existence of this insurance policy and Ipso facto there was a justiciable issue as to whether lack of knowledge excused them from compliance with the notice provisions of the policy. The Court of Appeals considered this issue, raised for the first time at the appellate level, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zuckerman v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
...See, e.g., Equity General Ins. Co. v. Patis, 119 Ill.App.2d 232, 74 Ill.Dec. 846, 456 N.E.2d 348 (App.Ct.1983); Reserve Ins. Co. v. Richards, 577 S.W.2d 417 (Ky.Sup.Ct.1978); and Falk v. Sul America Terrestres Maritimos, etc., 255 Or. 246, 465 P.2d 714 I would affirm. 1 We were advised at o......
-
Hiscox Dedicated Corp. Member v. Wilson
...of circumstances." Jones, 821 S.W.2d at 801 (emphasis added). Jones overturned the traditional rule represented by Reserve Ins. Co. v. Richards, 577 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Ky. 1978), that "[cjompliance with the notice provisions of an insurance policy is a condition precedent to recovery on the p......
-
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Certain Underwriters
...to coverage. See, e.g., H.S. Equities, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 334 So.2d 573, 577 (Fla.1976); Reserve Ins. Co. v. Richards, 577 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Ky.1978), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 821 S.W.2d 798 (Ky.1991); Liberty Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. L......
-
Jones v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.
...are strictly a matter of contract law, and, as such, "a condition precedent to recovery on the policy." Reserve Ins. Co. v. Richards, Ky., 577 S.W.2d 417, 419 (1979). In addition to the Reserve Ins. Co. v. Richards case, the trial court's summary judgment cited as precedent Aetna Casualty &......