Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Louisville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 2006No. 2004-SC-0048-DGPublished

1Dissent

Dissenting opinion by

Justice WINTERSHEIMER.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because the City of Louisville is expressly exempt from providing security for the payment of basic reparation benefits. Subsection 6 of KRS 304.39-080(5), explicitly provides that the entities enumerated in § -080(3), that is, the Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, municipal corporations, and public agencies may provide security under § - 080(6), however, § -080(5) clearly distinguishes between those enumerated exceptions and all other persons who shall continuously provide such security.

It…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lafferty v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1995
  2. Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. BrownDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API