Bill Cunningham

This case is an insurance coverage dispute where Bituminous Casualty Corporation (BCC) sought to deny coverage under a Commercial General Liability policy issued to Kenway Contracting, Inc., for damage caused when a Kenway employee unintentionally demolished part of a residential structure owned by the Turners while intending only to remove an attached carport. The Warren Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals held that BCC had a duty to defend and indemnify Kenway, and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the damage qualified as an "occurrence" or "accident" because it was unintended from the perspective of Kenway's management, even though the employee's actions were intentional. Additionally, the business risk exclusions in the policy were found to be ambiguous under the circumstances and thus construed against the insurer to provide coverage.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved Kentucky property owners near a uranium enrichment plant who sued the operating contractors for intentional trespass, alleging that imperceptible groundwater contamination from TCE and Tc-99 reduced their property values, though no health effects were claimed. The Kentucky Supreme Court addressed certified questions from the Sixth Circuit on whether actual harm must be proven for an intentional trespass claim and whether diminution in value is recoverable. The court held that proof of actual harm is not required to state a claim for intentional trespass, as Kentucky follows the common law rule protecting exclusive possession of land from any unprivileged intrusion regardless of duration or pecuniary loss. It further reasoned that plaintiffs may recover damages for the resulting diminution in property value when an intentional trespass is shown.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

The case involved Neal Scott Stone's conviction for first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance, based on a controlled buy arranged with a confidential informant, resulting in a twenty-year sentence. Stone, who represented himself at trial after initially requesting to proceed pro se, appealed on grounds that his waiver of counsel was invalid. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court failed to conduct the required Faretta inquiry into the waiver at the time Stone elected self-representation. This omission was particularly significant because Stone proceeded without counsel during a critical stage of the prosecution, the plea bargaining conference, violating his Sixth Amendment rights.

criminal lawprocedure