Kentucky

Std. of Review. Contracts, latent ambiguity (not appellate review but thought worth noting).

By Michael Stevens

Contract language,like statutory language, may be clear on its face and yet contain a latent ambiguity. Thornhill Baptist Church v.Smither, 273 S .W.2d 560, 567 (Ky. 1954);see also Carroll v.Cave Hill Cemetery Co., 172 Ky.204, 189 S .W . 186, 190 (1916) ("A latent ambiguity is one which does not appear upon the face of the words used, and it is not known to exist until the words are brought in contact with the collateral facts.") As explained further below, under facts peculiar to each case, the contract language in Preston ("legally entitled to recover") and Hatfield ("a legal right to recover") exposed a latent ambiguity when confronted with applicable laws of foreign jurisdictions that reflected public policies of those jurisdictions sharply at odds with Kentucky law. However, when the interplay between the policy language now before us and the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act is examined, we find no ambiguity in the policy language, and we can find no construction of such language that would support a conclusion that the Estate was "legally entitled to collect" any amounts from either the owner of the vehicle, James Long Trucking, or itsdriver, Napier, over and above the workers' compensation benefits already awarded under the Act .

255. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY V.  CARLENE SLUSHER,   ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE  OF DONALD SLUSHER, DECEASED
2009-SC-000513-DG KNOX
TO BE PUBLISHED
  OPINION OF THE COURT BY
 JUSTICE VENTERS ? REVERSING  AND REMANDING

Full post as published by Kentucky Cases on December 23, 2010 (boomark / email).