State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Slusher

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing prior cases that determined that “legally entitled to recover” required proof of fault and damages and deciding that the phrase was not ambiguous under the circumstances of Slusher’s case
• denying UM coverage for injuries resulting from a co-employee's negligent operation of a motor vehicle where the workers' compensation law granted immunity to the co- employee
• “In both Preston and Hatfield we interpreted a Kentucky insurance policy issued to a Kentucky resident as being consistent with Kentucky law, and we refused to subordinate Kentucky public policy to the conflicting public policy of another state.”
• “State Farm argues that the plain language of the policy, the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, and applicable case authorities compel the conclusion that it has no liability under either the UM and UIM provision. [W]e agree.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).