Bout v. Garcia-Luna

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “ . . . because the express terms of the policy and its attendant endorsement exclude the coverage at issue, Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law . . .”
• “Plaintiffs allege a KCPA claim pursuant to [KRS] 367.170. Accordingly, based upon well-established precedent, the two-year statute of limitations set forth in [KRS] 367.220(5) applies to Plaintiffs' KCPA claim.” (internal citation omitted)
• “[B]ecause promissory estoppel ‘is not intended to provide an alternative to a breach of contract claim, where a contract exists on the subject matter of the alleged promise sought to be enforced, a claim for promissory estoppel is not cognizable.’”
• “Since a claim for unjust enrichment or implied contract cannot lie under Kentucky law where a written contract references the same subject matter, this theory of recovery is barred by law. As a matter of law, therefore, Plaintiffs’ allegations fail . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).