Hardin County v. Wilkerson

I respectfully dissent from the majority above; as I believe that the underlying action was in active litigation prior to Ms. Wilkerson’s death and was, therefore, “pending” by virtue of the revival statute of KRS 395.278. Accordingly, KRS 304.36-085 automatically stayed the revival limitations period of KRS 395.278 when the original insurer became insolvent and provided an additional six months within which the plaintiffs successor, here, Charles Wilkerson, could revive the medical malpractice action. Thus, Appellees’ action was improperly dismissed.

The law regards that as done which ought…