Sewell, O’Brien & Neal, PLLC is an AV rated firm with an extensive practice in all aspects of wrongful death, personal injury, workers' compensation, insurance coverage litigation. Our attorneys are active members of the Kentucky or Indiana bars and practice regularly throughout these states. Our mission is to provide the highest quality legal services for individuals, companies, and insurers with impeccable integrity.
NEWS:
Peter Sewell to speak at CLE Conference on May 17, 2012
Peter Sewell will speak at a CLE seminar sponsored by National Business Institute on May 17, 2012. The seminar is called "Handling Complex Auto Insurance Coverage Disputes" and Mr. Sewell will present a case law and legislative update at 11:15 a.m. He will also present a talk on "Who is a Resident of an Insured's Household under an Automobile Policy" at 1:40 p.m. The seminar will be held at the Fern Valley Hotel and conference Center, 2715 Fern Valley Road, Louisville, KY. Registration starts at 8:30 a.m., and the seminar begins at 9:00 a.m. Interested persons may enroll in the seminar at www.nbi-sems.com.
Sixth Circuit affirms coverage decision re: no coverage for tortious interference with contract claim.
Cathy Sewell recently represented an insurance carrier in a declaratory rights action in federal court. The insured hired an individual that had previously worked at a different electronics company. The former employer sued the insured for alleged interference with contract. The carrier filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court and argued that the CGL policy did to provide coverage. The District court agreed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the verdict. You can read the full opinion here.
Peter Sewell represents winning party in Kentucky Supreme Court case re: sudden emergency defense and comparative fault
The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld a defense verdict that Peter Sewell obtained in a personal injury case arising from a collision of two personal watercraft on Lake Cumberland. At trial, the defense argued that the sudden emergency doctrine applied. The trial court instructed the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine, and the jury found in favor of the defense. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in giving a sudden emergency instruction to the jury. The Court also considered whether the sudden emergency doctrine was still necessary following Kentucky's adoption of comparative fault. A unanimous Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the viability of the sudden emergency doctrine, and held that the trial court did not err in giving such an instruction at trial. The Court also clarified when it would be appropriate to give a sudden emergency instruction in other cases. You can read the decision here.
Kentucky Supreme Court refers to Section 343A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts in modifying the duty owed for an "open and obvious" condition on business property.
The Kentucky Supreme Court has recently addressed how the "open and obvious" doctrine applies in Kentucky's pure comparative fault system. The case, which our firm was not involved in, concerned a paramedic who tripped on a curb while carrying a patient into a hospital emergency room. The hospital argued that the paramedic had walked over the same curb while transporting patients to the ER hundreds of times in the past, and that there was no duty to warn him of a condition that open and obvious to him. The hospital's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld that result. The Court considered the "open and obvious" doctrine, but noted that it arose before the adoption of pure comparative negligence. The Court concluded that the open and obvious nature of the curb should be considered by the jury in determining the Plaintiff's comparative fault, if any, but that it should not relieve the property owner or occupier of a legal duty. Read the decision here.
Ken O'Brien defends motor vehicle accident claim at trial
Ken O'Brien recently defended a motor vehicle accident claim in the Jefferson Circuit Court. Our client admitted fault for the accident, and the jury trial was limited to the issue of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages. Mr. O'Brien demonstrated that the Plaintiff had a pre-accident history of low back complaints, and that Plaintiff had not acknowledged those complaints in deposition or trial testimony. The Plaintiff sought to recover more than $275,000, but the jury returned a verdict of $10,000, an amount that was less than what had been offered before trial.
Peter Sewell and Cathy Sewell obtain $1,030,000 verdict for insurer
Peter Sewell and Cathy Sewell receive $1,030,000 verdict for insurer that issued policy based on misrepresentations contained in the policy application.