『The Legal Notepad』のカバーアート

The Legal Notepad

The Legal Notepad

著者： Attorneys Rob Mattingly Kevin Burke and John DeCamillis
無料で聴く

このコンテンツについて

 Attorneys Robert Mattingly, John DeCamillis and Kevin Burke are based in Louisville, Kentucky. Robert and John are highly successful litigators, while Kevin is a highly sought-after appellate attorney. The objective of The Legal Notepad Podcast is to provide valuable information about Kentucky law, Federal law and topics relevant in our community. The episodes will feature interesting interviews as well as technical discussions of the law and how to improve your trial practice. Robert and John are the founders of DeCamillis and Mattingly PLLC. Kevin is a partner in the law firm of Burke Neal PLLC. They have decades of experience practicing law throughout the state of Kentucky.2023 社会科学
エピソード
  • Direction of PIP Benefits for Medical Expenses

    Direction of PIP Benefits for Medical Expenses
    2025/06/04
    Episode 13: Louisville attorneys Rob Mattingly and Kevin C. Burke discuss a recent case involving the direction of PIP benefits for medical expenses. Rob and Kevin are joined by Lauren Byrn and for the second time, attorney Adam Redden. Editor’s Note: If you are an attorney and would like CLE credit for this episode, visit the Kentucky Justice Association website, click the Education and Training tab and look for the podcast. TODAY’S LEGAL QUESTION: Lauren asks, “What is the current state of an insured’s ability to direct no-fault benefits?” In Kentucky, many of the PIP carriers traditionally paid the invoice, as they were submitted. The option of directing specific invoices to be paid, instead of others, could be challenging. Most carriers wanted to pay on a first-in, first-paid basis. That has now changed, based on Erie Insurance Exchange v. Johnson (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2024-SC-0018). In our previous episode, we discussed the liability of an adult when their minor uses their car and causes a wreck (Episode 12). PIP Direction (not the boy band) Kevin clarifies that PIP Direction is not a new boy band. This prompts the team to explore Lauren’s Justin Timberlake crush. The statue involved in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Johnson is KRS 304.39-241, in the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act. It allows an insured seeking no-fault benefits to direct the payment of those benefits “among the different elements of loss.” Rob points out that the Court specifically mentions the term basic reparations benefits can be used interchangeably with PIP benefits. The case involves a motor vehicle accident. Two individuals sought various medical treatments. Generally PIP benefits cover $10,000 in medical expenses, lost wages, etc. Kevin advises non-lawyers to consult with and attorney to reserve the PIP benefits. The carrier is interest in paying the benefits as quickly as possible, but that may not be in the insured’s best interest. In the Erie case, the plaintiff’s attorney notified Erie to reserve the PIP benefits and expressed the desire that the chiropractor be paid from the benefits, rather than the hospital bill. Erie responded claiming the plaintiff could not direct the payments, beyond at the category-level. As a result, Erie filed suit. Ultimately, the circuit court agreed with the claimants (e.g. the insureds). In the court’s decision, it noted that the decision potentially affects millions of Kentuckians. Interestingly, this is a case of first impression. The court found that the claimants could direct the medical expenses. The case went to the court of appeals. The court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. The case was accepted on discretionary review by the KY Supreme Court. When the case made it to the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2022, the Court had to throw it out, due to a lack of jurisdiction. There Was No Magic Language The circuit court’s opinion did not fully and finally resolve all issues in the case. The direction of benefits issue wasn’t resolved. Additionally, there was a claim for accrued interest and a claim for attorney fees. Thus, the Supreme Court found that the case was not appealable. It didn’t contain the magic language: “Final and appealable with no just reason for delay.” Rob and Kevin discuss how attorneys can avoid this situation. Kevin explains that if there are still unresolved claims, under CR5402, the opinion must say, “Final and appealable with no just reason for delay.” If that specific language is not included, it’s going to get kicked back down to the lower court. Kevin explains this is non-waivable, even if the issue isn’t raised by the parties. The court has a duty to raise it on its own. In this particular case, the court of appeals overlooked the defect. Once the case goes back down, a new order is entered, addressing the direction issue, interest, attorney fees and adds the magic language. It goes back to the court of appeals, which affirms the circuit court’s ruling in favor of the claimants. Once again, the KY Supreme Court takes the case for discretionary review. Eventually, it results in the 2025 opinion. Standard for Review on a Legal Issue This will be a de novo review. The court doesn’t pay deference to the court of appeal’s opinion or that of the circuit court. The Court is evaluating it, anew, based on what the statute says regarding the circumstances of the case. The issue involving the direction of benefits received a de novo review. The other issues were reviewed using a different standard, because there was an abuse of discretion. Interpreting “The Element of Loss” Language The Court has various mechanisms for interpreting language. In this case, they went through statutory interpretation. Adam notes a few things in the opinion. Page 9 – “…Carry out the intent of the Legislature.” ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    49 分
  • Liability for Letting a Minor Drive a Vehicle (KRS186.590)

    Liability for Letting a Minor Drive a Vehicle (KRS186.590)
    2025/05/26
    Episode 12: Louisville attorneys Rob Mattingly and Kevin C. Burke explore parental liability, now that 15 year olds are able to get a drivers license. Parents should be aware of their responsibilities related to this new issue. Rob and Kevin are joined by Lauren Byrn and for the first time, attorney Adam Redden. Editor’s Note: If you are an attorney and would like CLE credit for this episode, visit the Kentucky Justice Association website, click the Education and Training tab and look for the podcast. TODAY’S LEGAL QUESTION: Lauren asks, “Now that Kentucky has a new law allowing 15 year olds to get their drivers licenses, what are the liability for parents?” The Statute for Parental Liability for Minors Driving an Automobile KRS186.590 is the relevant law for this issue. This law has been in place for decades. Rob addresses non-lawyers by explaining how a parent can be held liable for a collision caused by your minor child. There are 2 broad scenarios outlined by this statute. The first scenario (Section 1) assumes you signed the application allowing the minor to get his/her license. Therefore, you are deemed responsible for anything the minor does in the car, because you signed the application. However, there is an exception. If you’ve made sure the vehicle they are driving has insurance, you are not liable. The second scenario (Section 2) is much broader. Regardless of whether you personally signed the application, and regardless of the insurance, if you own the vehicle or allow the minor to drive the vehicle, you are liable. Under Section 3, Rob notes the person who owns or furnishes the vehicle may not have been the one who signed the application for the minor to get his/her license. By the way, if you were to allow a minor who is not your child, to drive your vehicle, you are liable for what may happen. Kevin explains the two scenarios are there to ensure there is a source of recovery for someone who might be involved in a collision with a negligent, minor driver. To illustrate how all of this works, Lauren will pose a few questions and Adam will provide the answers. Example #1: Mom takes her 16 year old to get his/her licenses. She signs the application. However, she does not get insurance on the vehicle. Is she liable? Yes, under Part 1 of the statue, the mother would be liable because she signed the application. Kentucky requires vehicles to be insured. The fact that the vehicle wasn’t insured at the time of the accident isn’t the primary issue. However, she should have made sure the vehicle was insured. Insured or not, the mother would be held liable. Example #2: Mom signs the application and gets the car insured. However, dad has a different vehicle. He gives the child permission to drive his car. If the minor driver causes an accident, who is liable? Adam explains that the mother would not be held liable. Although she signed and insured the first vehicle, the statue specifically notes that if you furnish a vehicle to a minor, that person is liable. Therefore, the dad would be held liable for the minor’s negligence. In reality, assuming the car is family asset, dad would still be liable. The above example would be relevant if the parents were divorced. Example #3: An adult, who is not the parent and didn’t sign the application, agrees to let a minor borrow a car. Would the adult be held liable? In this example, according to Section 3, the adult is liable because he/she furnished the vehicle to a minor driver. The adult assumed the liability. Example #4: Mom signs the application and gets insurance on the car. Unfortunately, dad allows the policy to lapse. Who would be liable? Mom would be liable, however dad could potentially also be held liable if he had control of the vehicle and allows the minor to drive it, Section 3 would apply. Example #5: Assume adult #1 borrows a car from adult #2 (with permission). Then, adult #1 allows a minor to drive the car. The minor causes an accident. Who is liable? Kevin explains that this is a Section 3 issue. Anyone who causes or knowingly permits a minor to drive a vehicle assumes liability. It could also be said that adult #1 furnished the vehicle. Adam clarifies that adult #2 could also be liable. He/she permitted adult #1 to use the car, even though it was adult #1 who permitted the minor to drive it. Rob suggests that adult #2 should have explicitly told adult #1 that the minor was not allowed to drive the car. At the end of the day, this isn’t a situation you want to find yourself in, so be advised. Practical Pointers You Can Take to Protect Yourself If you are the parent, make sure you keep insurance on the car your minor is driving. You should also decide how much insurance you can buy. While insurance premiums are expensive, you need to consider the value of the assets you need to protect (i.e...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 13 分
  • Kentucky's Firefighter's Rule (First Responders)

    Kentucky's Firefighter's Rule (First Responders)
    2024/11/25
    Episode 11: Louisville attorneys Rob Mattingly and Kevin C. Burke unpack Kentucky’s Firefighter’s Rule. A recent opinion by the Supreme Court has resulted in a flurry of comments on social media. Editor’s Note: If you are an attorney and would like CLE credit for this episode, visit the Kentucky Justice Association website, click the Education and Training tab and look for the podcast. TODAY’S LEGAL QUESTION: Lauren comments she recently saw the Supreme Court issued a new opinion about the Firefighter’s Rule in Wooster Motor Ways, Inc. vs. Gonterman (10/24/24). It’s a hot topic on social media. She asks Rob and Kevin to provide details about this rule. Kevin submitted an amicus brief, on behalf of the Kentucky Justice Association for the Wooster case. What Is the Firefighter’s Rule? Kevin begins by explaining what the rule is. In its most basic form, it bars public employees (such as firefighters, police officers, EMTs, etc.) who are exposed to risks as part of their normal job activities, from recovering damages for injuries from the property owner or the person who may have caused the situation (e.g. the arsonist). The rule is a misnomer. This is not a rule the firefighters or other first responders actually want. Rob mentions it’s also referred to as a professional rescuer’s rule or a first responder’s rule. Rob goes on to advice attorneys to review this rule, if they are approached by an injured first responder regarding a claim for the injuries they suffered. While they may have a workers’ compensation claim, the other types of personal injury claims wouldn’t typically apply. Public Policy Rational for the Rule Rob and Kevin comment that the general public policy is that we want someone who has a fire or other emergency to call 911, rather than worrying about the potential legally liability should one or more of the first responders get injured while resolving the emergency situation. However, could this rule also discourage people from pursuing first responder jobs, if they know they can recover damages as compared to other people? Public vs. Private Employees Lauren asks about a healthcare professional, such as a nurse, who encounters a car wreck. Aren’t they compelled to render assistance? If so, does the firefighter’s rule apply to them? Kevin points out that in Kentucky, the rule only applies to public employees, so a nurse or other healthcare professional would not be limited by the Firefighter’s Rule, were they to suffer an injury. The Origin of the Firefighter’s Rule Rob and Kevin discuss the origin of the Firefighter’s Rule, from a national perspective. The origin goes back to Gibson vs. Leonard, 32 N.E. 182 (Illinois 1892). This was the first case in the country that applied the Firefighter’s Rule. A Chicago warehouse fire occurred. The warehouse stored whiskey barrels. Mr. Gibson and his fellow firefighters responded. Back in the day, they part of the Fire Insurance Patrol. This was roughly 21 years after the great Chicago fire). The Patrol was created by the insurance agencies to protect the assets of the businesses they insured, in the case of a fire. Note: The Fire Insurance Patrol and the Chicago Fire Department both responded to the warehouse fire. The Fire Insurance Patrol is tarping the area and moving the barrels in an effort to prevent them from being destroyed. Mr. Gibson and others place some of the barrels into the lift elevator to move them to a different location. The lift fails, causing an injury to Mr. Gibson. He later attempts to sue the owners of the building for his injuries. The Illinois Supreme Court said both the Chicago Fire Department and the Fire Insurance Patrol were responding to the fire and had a right to be there and their attempts to save the building and its assets were justified. The public policy was to encourage people to call the fire department in the case of an emergency. This was not only to put out the fire, but to also prevent it from spreading to adjoining properties. The Court created the rule of non-liability, acknowledging that firefighters assume the liability for potential injury as part of their job. Rob explains that on a national basis, some jurisdictions have adopted the rule, while others have rejected it. The trend tends toward more courts now rejecting the rule. Kentucky’s Adoption of the Firefighter’s Rule The first Kentucky case Rob and Kevin address is Buren vs. Midwest Industries, Inc., 380 S.W.2d 96 (Ky. 1964). This is the case that establishes the Firefighter’s Rule in Kentucky. In this situation, Louisville firefighters were called to a fire in a commercial building. The building included a bowling alley, restaurant and storage space. There were several factors that may have led to the rapid spread of the fire. One or more firefighters were injured while ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 16 分

The Legal Notepadに寄せられたリスナーの声

カスタマーレビュー：以下のタブを選択することで、他のサイトのレビューをご覧になれます。

Audible.co.jp

Amazon.co.jp
レビューはまだありません。