Hurley v. Downing

Respectfully, I dissent. The Majority Opinion errs for two critical reasons: (1) It is squarely in conflict with the statutory language in the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA), KRS 304.39-010-304.39-340. (2) It is squarely in conflict with our recent, unanimous decision in Bailey v. Reeves, Ky., 662 S.W.2d 832 (1984).

Carolyn Hurley did not “remove herself from the application” of the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act when she executed a Rejection Form refusing coverage for no-fault benefits. On the contrary, the MVRA applies alike to everyone who uses a motor vehicle on the public roads in…