Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy
| Decision Date | 27 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-CA-1198-MR,93-CA-1198-MR |
| Citation | 896 S.W.2d 17 |
| Parties | SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Edward J. McCARTHY, Appellee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
J. David Bender, Covington, for appellant Shelter Mut. Ins. Co.
William J. Kathman, Jr., Florence, for appellee Edward J. McCarthy.
Before GUDGEL, SCHRODER and WILHOIT, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order entered by the Boone Circuit Court awarding the appellee, Edward J. McCarthy, a pro-rata share of a $10,000 personal injury protection reimbursement paid by Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company, the third party defendant's insurer. The appellant also appeals from that portion of the order requiring it to pay a pro-rata share of the unreimbursable case expenses.
This matter arises out of an auto accident involving the appellee and a third party. The appellee does not dispute the following statement of the facts made by the appellant:
This matter came on before the Court for a trial by jury on Monday, March 8, 1993. On March 9, 1993, the jury returned a verdict of Fifty-one thousand five hundred and 00/100 ($51,500.00) dollars for the Plaintiff [Edward McCarthy]. Medical bills submitted to the jury totaled Seventeen thousand three hundred eighty-three and 35/100 ($17,383.35) dollars. The jury awarded the sum of Fifteen thousand and 00/100 ($15,000.00) dollars as medical expenses. As stipulated by the parties, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company had paid Ten thousand three hundred and 00/100 ($10,300.00) dollars in BRB benefits concerning the Plaintiff's medical expenses. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the Forty-one thousand five hundred and 00/100 ($41,500.00) dollars, and the parties agreed that the Ten thousand and 00/100 ($10,000.00) PIP reimbursement from Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company to Shelter Mutual Insurance Company would be held by the parties pending a decision by the Court concerning its distribution of the $10,000 between the Plaintiff and Shelter Mutual Insurance Company. A Trial Order and Judgment was entered in this matter on April 8, 1993.
A hearing on this issue was held before the Court on Monday, April 28, 1993, in which the Trial Court heard arguments, without a record, from the Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for Shelter Mutual Insurance Company. The parties had previously briefed this issue before the Court, and the Court on May 7, 1993, entered an Order that there should be a pro-rata distribution of this subject matter Ten thousand and 00/100 ($10,000.00) dollars between the parties concerning the medical bills and court costs incurred in this matter by the Plaintiff.
This appeal followed.
The appellant, Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, takes exception with the trial court on two separate counts. First, the appellant maintains that it should recover the full $10,000 in basic reparation benefits it paid to the appellee. Second, it alleges that it should not be responsible for any portion of the nonreimbursable case expenses incurred by the appellee.
The appellant has the right to recover the basic reparation benefits which it paid on behalf of the appellee in accordance with KRS 304.39-070(3). In pertinent part, that statute provides as follows:
A reparation obligor shall have the right to recover basic reparation benefits paid to or for the benefit of a person suffering the injury from the reparation obligor of a secured person as provided in this subsection, except as provided in KRS 304.39-140(3).
This statute expressly creates a right in the reparation obligor, the appellant, to recover benefits paid from the reparation obligor of a secured person, Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company. Generally, this section has been interpreted to mean that subrogation is allowed "provided available coverage is not exhausted and that payments to the injured party are not diminished." State Automobile Mutual Ins. Co. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ky., 808 S.W.2d 805, 807 (1991). It is uncontroverted that the available coverage is not exhausted. The available coverage under the insurance policy was $100,000 and the total amount of the verdict was only $51,500. It is important to note that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stevenson v. Anthem Cas. Ins. Group
...It Ruschell, Ky., 834 S.W.2d 166 (1992); Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Atherton, Ky., 656 S.W.2d 724, 725 (1983); Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, Ky.App., 896 S.W.2d 17 (1995); Shelter Ins. Co. v. Humana Health. Plans, Inc., Ky.App., 882 S.W.2d 127, 128 (1994); Stone v. Montgomery, Ky.App., ......
-
Morris v. Crete Carrier Corp.
...court had already dismissed Westfield's claim against Crete. Mrs. Morris is not entitled to a double recovery. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 896 S.W.2d 17 (Ky.Ct.App.1995). In this case, the district court did not consider whether Mrs. Morris received a double recovery. Therefore, we r......
-
Johnson v. Mattingly, 2002-CA-000053-MR.
...authorized by statute." 20 Am. Jur. 2d Costs § 51 (2003). Kentucky courts have applied this rule. See Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, Ky. App., 896 S.W.2d 17, 19 (1995) (holding that "case expenses should be treated like attorney fees; that is, statutory authority must be given in order ......