Kentucky law on auto insurance coverage more clearly defined
Supreme Court of Kentucky rules that State Farm must abide by the terms of the policy it sold to family.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky delivered an opinion on June 19, 2008 in the case of Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No.: 2006-SC-000856-DG, ruling that State Farm must honor its commitment to provide coverage under the terms of a policy it sold the Williams family to protect family members against automobile injuries and death. The family was represented by Bahe Cook Cantley & Jones PLC attorney, Will Nefzger.
On Christmas Eve 2002, brothers Aaron Williams and Paul Williams suffered fatal injuries in a single vehicle car accident as they were on their way to celebrate the holiday with family. Aaron was a senior at Menifee County High School and Paul had just finished his first semester at the University of Kentucky.
State Farm denied the family's claim under a policy of insurance the family maintained that provided coverage for this type of auto accident. State Farm relied on a term in the policy that excluded coverage if the vehicle involved in the accident was furnished for the regular use of any family member. Aaron, who still lived at home with parents Sanford and Patty Williams, owned the vehicle involved in the accident and was driving when it happened.
The Supreme Court of Kentucky, in a 7-0 decision, held the exclusion did not apply in this case because Aaron owned the vehicle and by definition it was not furnished to him for his regular use.
“This decision by the Supreme Court is very bittersweet for our family,” Sanford Williams said. “We lost two amazing children who were taken away at a young age and had so much life ahead of them. But we are very pleased that, in a way, Aaron and Paul's deaths will help other families in the future.”
The Williams' attorney, Will Nefzger of the law firm Bahe Cook Cantley & Jones PLC in Louisville, agreed. “This decision represents a victory for Kentucky families,” Nefzger said. “The exclusion State Farm relied on is a common one in automobile insurance policies. So, the likelihood of this scenario happening again is high, and now, we have guidance from the Supreme Court on how it should be handled. An unanimous decision by the court provides complete and total validation to the position we held throughout this entire case.”
"Everyone knows the way insurance works is that you are presented with a policy and you have to either take it or leave it. There is no negotiation of the terms," said Nefzger. "The Williams family agreed to the terms State Farm offered, but when it came time to cover a legitimate claim, State Farm would not honor the terms that were chosen solely by them. What's worse is that they had a court in Louisiana tell them in August 2002 they had to provide coverage under the very same terms in this case. Despite being on notice through that case, they continued to fight the Williams all the way here in Kentucky.”
After the Supreme Court's decision, State Farm agreed to pay the policy limits to the Williams family.
