Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dowell v. Safe Auto Insurance Co.

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 2006No. 2005-SC-000153-DGPublished

1DissentMinton, Justice

Relying principally upon a Webster’s dictionary definition to find a nonexistent ambiguity, the majority quietly buries decades of precedent that held that hit and run vehicles are covered under UM policies only if the policy itself clearly says so. Because I believe that the decision we reach today will upset the settled state of our UM jurisprudence, as well as the settled expectations of both insurers and insureds, I respectfully dissent.

Under our clear precedent, the UM statute does not mandate coverage for hit and *879run vehicles.1 Rather, UM coverage for hit and run vehicles is a matter of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Cowan v. WilkinsonKentucky Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Jett v. DoeKentucky Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Burton v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. HuntCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1977

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API