Call us today at (859) 225-3731 or visit us here to request a free consultation with one of Mehr Fairbanks’ attorneys.

*The information contained within this post should not be considered legal advice or legal representation.

Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers has been selected as one of the Best Litigation Attorneys in Lexington for 2022 by Expertise.com!

Expertise.com finds and reviews the top service professionals in over 200 industries across the U.S. According to their website, they research more than 60,000 businesses to help customers find the best-qualified professional for their needs.

Call our firm today for a free consultation!

Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers has obtained a $475,000 settlement in a bad faith case against an insurer.

Call our firm today for a free consultation if you believe that you have a bad faith insurance claim!

Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers has obtained a $400,000 settlement in a bad faith case against an insurer.

Call our firm today for a free consultation if you believe that you have a bad faith insurance claim!

In late April, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers defeated Allstate Insurance Company’s motion for protective order of insurance claim files relating to a bad faith claim. In their opinion entered on April 28^th, the Circuit Court held that the probative value of the documents to the Plaintiff’s case outweighed any prejudice to the Defendant, thus denying Allstate’s claim that information within the documents should be protected from discovery during the ongoing litigation.

The case at issue arose after an automobile accident occurred in Tennessee. The parties reached a settlement for bodily injury claims, though the injured party subsequently filed suit for Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage in Kentucky court. The Plaintiff later moved to amend their complaint to include claims against Allstate for bad faith and Unfair Claims Settlement Practices. After this motion, the Plaintiff moved to compel discovery of Allstate’s complete copy of their insurance claim file. This motion was granted, and Allstate ordered to comply within 30-days. Allstate then moved for a protective order of the documents, stating that they should be shielded from discovery under both the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. The work product doctrine requires that documents that have been prepared by legal counsel in preparation for litigation should not be discoverable by the other party, as it would provide an unfair edge to opposing counsel. Attorney-client privilege protects the private information shared between an attorney and their client from discovery.

Since the discovery request relates to the bad faith claim against Allstate, the Court must make several considerations when determining whether to grant a protective order. First, the Court must classify the bad faith claim by determining whether it is first- or third-party. First-party bad faith claims occur when “the insured sues the insurer for failing to use good faith to resolve the insured’s claim.” The Court concludes that the current claim falls into this category, as it “concerns a claim between an insurer and its insured.” Next, the Court must consider whether any privilege exists which could exclude part of the requested document from discovery, though not its entirety. Here, the Court looks to established case law stating that, “attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are generally inapplicable in first-party bad faith cases.” The Court states that even if the claim file includes information that is work product or is protected by attorney-client privilege, in this category of cases, “discovery of the entire claim file is appropriate.”

Regarding the probative value of the claim file, the Court states that since insurers are required to uphold their duty of good faith as long as a policy is “in play”, the information contained in claim file (“relevant, unprivileged information about the investigation and basis for the coverage decisions,”), the claim file is imperative to the Plaintiff’s discovery process. Thus, the claim file contains probative information that outweighs any interest Allstate has in protecting the document as work product or subject to attorney-client privilege.

The Circuit Court thus denied Allstate’s motion for protective order and granted the Plaintiff’s motion to compel. The case may now proceed with the proper documents open to discovery. This decision and others like it are imperative to the ability of insureds to seek legal recourse against their insurer when duties essential to the operation of insurance contracts have been breached.

On March 25, 2022, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Mayor Linda Gorton’s recommendation to appoint Austin Mehr to a term on the Carnegie Center for Literacy was approved by The Urban County Council. Austin’s term will extend to September 1, 2025.

The National Trial Lawyers Announces M. Austin Mehr as One of Its Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers in Kentucky For Immediate Release

The National Trial Lawyers is pleased to announce that M. Austin Mehr of Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers has been selected for inclusion into its Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers in Kentucky, an honor given to only a select group of lawyers for their superior skills and qualifications in the field. Membership in this exclusive organization is by invitation only and is limited to the top 100 attorneys in each state or region who have demonstrated excellence and have achieved outstanding results in their careers in either civil plaintiff or criminal defense law.

The National Trial Lawyers is a professional organization comprised of the premier trial lawyers from across the country who have demonstrated exceptional qualifications in criminal defense or civil plaintiff law. The National Trial Lawyers provides accreditation to these distinguished attorneys, and provides essential legal news, information, and continuing education to trial lawyers across the United States.

With the selection of M. Austin Mehr by The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100, he has shown that he exemplifies superior qualifications, leadership skills, and trial results as a trial lawyer. The selection process for this elite honor is based on a multi-phase process which includes peer nominations combined with third party research. As The National Trial Lawyers: Top 100 is an essential source of networking and information for trial attorneys throughout the nation, the final result of the selection process is a credible and comprehensive list of the most outstanding trial lawyers chosen to represent their state or region.

To learn more about The National Trial Lawyers, please visit: http://thenationaltriallawyers.org/.

Effective immediately, due to COVID-19 and government recommendations, our office will be closed to the public until further notice, unless you have confirmed a time to meet with someone in our office directly. However, we will continue to provide the highest level of legal services to our current clients and potential clients.

If you have a meeting scheduled with one of our attorneys in the next few weeks, we will likely contact you about rescheduling.

If you are seeking legal assistance or consultation, please contact us via phone at 800-249-3731, or contact one of our attorneys or staff directly via email at:

Austin Mehr, Attorney | amehr@austinmehr.com Philip Fairbanks, Attorney | pgf@austinmehr.com Bartley Hagerman, Attorney | bkh@austinmehr.com Elizabeth Thornsbury, Attorney | elizabeth@austinmehr.com Suzy Hall, Paralegal | shall@austinmehr.com Katelynn Nolen, Paralegal | knolen@austinmehr.com

We will continue to monitor developments and make changes as necessary. For updates to our availability, please follow us on Facebook. For your safety, as well as the safety of others, please heed the recommendations of health officials.

SALYERSVILLE – A Magoffin County jury made the largest bad faith judgment in Magoffin County’s history on Friday, awarding a family over $15 million in an 11-year-old civil case.

Just as a brief synopsis, and at the risk of missing something pertinent in the long and detailed case, around 2003 or 2004 J.D. Carty Resources reportedly drilled a natural gas well where they had not been given the rights. Those rights belonged to the heirs of Ben and Lillian Salyer, who had signed the deed to mineral rights 100 years ago. The well was beyond successful, producing $1.3 million worth of natural gas, even at one point having to evacuate the area around it on Stinson Creek (on Patton Fork). However, the family still hasn’t seen the first dime of the money.

The Salyer family, with over 50 plaintiffs in total, filed suit in 2007, and that’s where it got complicated. The court has ruled J.D. Carty was to pay $628,000, but even though it has been sent to the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court and federal court multiple times, it was evidently never clear whether J.D. Carty or the insurance company, Greenwich Insurance Company, was liable for the payments.

Greenwich evidently paid $20,000 of an agreed settlement, but the rest was never paid and none of the money ever went to the plaintiffs.

The most recent two-week-long jury trial revolved around whether Greenwich had failed to meet their legal demands and if they had done so with gross negligence.

Susan Maines, with Casey Bailey & Maines, PLLC, and the legal defense for Greenwich Insurance Company, argued that though their client, J.D. Carty was “highly enriched” by the trespassing and depriving of minerals, Greenwich Insurance Company did not think they were liable costs since the actions breached their policy and had technically occurred before being hired as the resource company’s insurance agent.

“Greenwich was wrong, but not unreasonable or outrageously,” Maines argued in her closing argument.

Austin Mehr, with Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers and the attorney for the Salyers, focused on the 52 people in the case and how their lives have been affected by the theft of minerals, and how each of them had been involved in the case. He argued Greenwich Insurance Company did know they were responsible for covering these claims, and they had neglected to do so.

“What’s it going to take for Greenwich to say it’s just not worth it to keep lying to people?” Mahr asked in his closing argument. “The temptation to do, again, to continue this conduct, and for their competitors to do the same. That needs to be considered – the profitability of misconduct to Greenwich.”

Mehr and his law partner, Phil Fairbanks, were asking for up to $23.44 million, which they had calculated as the amount Greenwich had profited during the time span in question, in punitive damages for the family for the gross negligence conducted by the insurance company, and up to $40,000 for each of the plaintiffs involved in the case.

Circuit Court Judge James W. Craft instructed the jury to answer a series of 124 questions, all surrounding whether Greenwich had either unknowingly or calculatedly failed to communicate with the plaintiffs, investigate their claims or compensate the heirs of the mineral rights in this case.

After eight days of trial and over two hours of deliberation, the jury agreed that Greenwich acted with gross negligence in not paying the plaintiffs, awarding each of the 52 plaintiffs to be paid varying amounts for their mental anxiety and anguish. Five of the plaintiffs were awarded $40,000, 13 were awarded $20,000, and 34 were awarded $11,000. Afterward, Mehr explained to the Independent the varying amounts set by the jury seemed to consider the amount the individual plaintiffs were active in the case.

When Judge Craft read the answer to the last quest of the verdict, which reportedly noted Greenwich was to pay $14,300 in punitive damages, the members of the jury were all shaking their heads “no.” The judge polled the jury and then let them go back to deliberate once, again. After a few minutes, they came back out and he read the final verdict, awarding the family $14.3 million in punitive damages.

In total, Greenwich Insurance Company was ordered to pay $15.134 million, counting the lump sum for punitive damages and the individual payments.

Mehr told the Independent, “I’m very pleased with the jury’s decision, sending a message to this insurance company and other insurance companies that they need to follow claims-handling laws in Kentucky.”

He went on to talk about the plaintiffs in the case, stating, “The Salyer family is just a great group of people. Many served in the military. They are good, hard-working people and they had their mineral rights in the family 100 years this October, when their great-grandfather, Ben Salyer signed the deed.”

Another hearing in the case is tentatively scheduled for November 6 at 10:30 a.m. in Whitesburg. Greenwich Insurance Company’s attorneys have already expressed that they plan to file an appeal to the judgment, which will inevitably tie up the case even longer.

In his decision back in April, U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning declined to dismiss former members of St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees’ Pension Plan Administrative Committee from an Employee Retirement Income Security Act breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim that the plan had not been properly funded.

On Friday, October 5, 2018, Judge Bunning once again rejected the former administrative committee members’ attempts to be dismissed from the case and denied their motion for reconsideration.

Arguing that the Judge’s April order was in conflict with Duncan v. Muzyn, a Sixth Circuit Court decision where it was found that the plaintiff in the case hadn’t alleged any “more than a hypothetical loss of expected benefits,” and based thereon, dismissed the plan management team from the claim.

In his decision on the motion for reconsideration, Judge Bunning declined to reconsider based on Duncan until “a determination has been made regarding ERISA’s application to the plan.” Accordingly, the court found the motion to be premature and denied on that basis.

In April, Judge Bunning had previously found that the members of the plan sufficiently alleged that former members of its administration committee could be liable as fiduciaries for losses to the plan if the court ruled the plan didn’t qualify for an ERISA religious exemption, as claimed by the medical center.

In addition to the “church plan” claim of exemption, the underfunding claim of plaintiffs’ also survived. The former members had argued that if the ERISA underfunding claim fails as they allege, the linked “church plan” claim must also be dismissed.

The plaintiffs are represented in part by Erik D. Peterson of Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers PLLC in Lexington, KY.

The case is Boden et al. v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center Inc. et al., case number 2:16-cv-00049, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.