Driving in Kentucky comes with a clear set of responsibilities designed to keep motorists, passengers, and pedestrians safe. These rules are primarily found in KRS Chapter 189 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes and apply to anyone operating a vehicle on public roadways.

The most basic rule is that everyone is required to operate their vehicle in a careful manner with regard to the safety of others. This means that drivers should be aware of their surroundings, and avoid aggressive driving, excessive accelerations, or dangerous lane changes. Drivers should adjust their driving for weather, traffic, and road conditions.

Kentucky law requires drivers to travel at a speed that is “reasonable and prudent” for conditions. Standard maximum limits are generally 70 mph on rural interstates, 65 mph on urban interstates and parkways, 55 mph on many other highways, and 35 mph in residential or business districts, unless otherwise posted. Speeds must be reduced in school zones and during hazardous conditions like rain, fog, or ice.

Drivers must comply with all official traffic control devices, including stop signs, yield signs, traffic lights, and lane markings. Running a red light or ignoring a stop sign is a violation. At four-way stops, drivers yield to the vehicle that arrives first. When turning left, you must yield to oncoming traffic. Drivers must stay in their lane of travel, should not swerve out of their lane into oncoming traffic, and must follow specific rules for passing and overtaking slower vehicles in front of them.

Drivers must have their headlights on ½ hour after sunset to ½ hour before sunrise, or at other times where the conditions render visibility low.

Vehicles should generally be kept in good working order, with brakes, brake lights, horns, and steering devices to be reasonably safe. Vehicles should avoid obstructions that would make it difficult for the driver to see.

Right-of-way rules are central to preventing collisions. Kentucky drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, to vehicles already in an intersection, and to emergency vehicles using lights and sirens. If an emergency vehicle approaches an intersection with its lights and sirens activated, it has the right of way even if its traffic signal is red. When approaching stopped emergency vehicles or certain roadside vehicles with flashing lights, drivers must move over when safe to do so.

Likewise, when a school or church bus displays flashing red lights and an extended stop arm, traffic behind the bus must stop. Traffic in both directions must stop unless the roadway is a four-lane highway.

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not permitted. Generally speaking, a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher constitutes DUI for most drivers, with stricter standards for commercial drivers and those under 21. Texting while driving is also prohibited, and drivers under 18 face additional cellphone restrictions.

If you are involved in a collision, you should stop, provide identifying information, render reasonable assistance to anyone injured, and notify law enforcement when appropriate.

If you suffer a collision, contact the attorneys at Mehr Fairbanks for a free consultation. You can reach us through our website here or by phone at (859) 225-3731.

Most employers provide some type of disability insurance coverage for their employees. It might be time to refresh your memory on what your employer provides you with specifically. In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit recently determined that an employer provided disability insurance company was within its rights to reduce an employee’s disability benefits by $800,000. The $800,000 came from a recent personal injury settlement the employee received on a completely unrelated matter. Haddad v. SMG Long Term Disability Plan, No. 16-CV-01700-WHO, 2021 WL 2187979 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2021).

The case turned on the legal distinction between “offsets” and “exclusions” and “limitations” in regard to long-term disability plans. This marginal difference may be the difference between receiving the anticipated total value of long-term disability benefits or having that total value later diminished. Exclusions and limitations carve out areas from the scope of an insurance policy’s coverage. Offsets reduce the total amount owed for covered claims.

For example, in the case mentioned above, Mr. Haddad was an employee that received long-term disability benefits from his employer-sponsored insurance plan after becoming disabled. He received an $800,000 settlement for an unrelated matter and his disability benefits were reduced, or offset, by the amount he received in the settlement. Mr. Haddad challenged this offset and ultimately lost. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that offsets are distinctly different from exclusions and limitations and therefore the employer-sponsored insurance plan was within its rights to reduce Mr. Haddad’s disability benefits by the amount he received in his settlement.

The Ninth Circuit further stipulated that the employer-sponsored insurance plan was clear and unambiguous when it mentioned specifically in its long-term disability plan that disability benefits would be offset by any payments that were the result of a settlement or judgment to the insured employee. This long-term disability plan specifically did not require that the offsets to settlements be for related injuries. This long-term disability plan provider was also not required to draw attention to the language in its plan related to offsets based on settlements or judgments. Thus, even though Mr. Haddad received the settlement for something unrelated to his disability insurance it was still deemed okay for the employer-sponsored insurance provider to reduce his disability benefits by the settlement amount.

If you have questions about your disability insurance plan or have experienced a situation similar to Mr. Haddad, 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.

A federal court in Pennsylvania recently certified a class of Plaintiffs under Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Co.’s disability benefits plan (“Plan”). The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants forced beneficiaries who had received payments for personal injury claims to send the payments back to the company in violation of ERISA.

The named Plaintiff, Joanne Wolff, first filed suit against Aetna in 2019 when the company asked for the repayment of over $50,000 in long-term disability benefits stemming from a temporary disability suffered by the Plaintiff after a car wreck. At the time of the request, Wolff told the Defendants that her employer, Bank of America, did not allow reimbursement, and negotiations ended in an agreement that that Wolff would pay $30,000 despite this fact.

This did not end the dispute, however, and Wolff along with an at least 48-member class now allege that Aetna violated ERISA when it required reimbursement payments of long-term personal injury disability payments. Aetna responded that class certification would be inappropriate, as the proposed class did not meet the specifications required for certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mainly, the Defendants argued that some of the members of the proposed class should be disqualified, thus the number of participants in the class did not meet the numerosity requirement. It argued that since some of the members of the class were from different companies, there was not sufficient typicality to fulfill the requirements under the Civil Rules and members under other employers should be disqualified, reducing the class number to 28. Aetna also argued that timing issues barred several more participants under the relevant statutes of limitations.

The Court disagreed, stating that the class size both exceeded the minimum number of members and that the benefit plans of each member were substantially similar, thus making certification appropriate under the Civil Rules. It was decided that the plans at issue contained similar enough language that the fact that the beneficiaries worked for different companies was irrelevant. Judge Matthew W. Brann stated, “Because Wolff meets all three concerns implicated by typicality, the court finds she had satisfied this requirement.” Regarding the argument that certain members were barred under statutes of limitations, the Court stated that this number was so few that it would not impact the ability for the class to be appropriately certified under the Civil Rules.

Therefore, Wolff and the class of members is permitted to move forward in federal court as all requirements have been satisfied. This decision is a victory not only for members of the class, but for participants in disability plans governed by ERISA. ERISA requires that plan administrators fulfill various fiduciary duties to their participants; when these duties are violated it is often done on a large scale and impacts participants across not only the specific company but under similar plans as well. This decision shows the importance of policy language and similarity between plans, creating the standard that when companies breach their duties to participants, an action may be brought under similar policy language rather than under the same employer. This provides the opportunity for recourse under ERISA to a wider range of plan participants, ensuring the fulfillment of benefits and accountability from administrators.

The accident attorneys at Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers frequently represent people who have been injured in accidents. Car wrecks, medical mishaps, and falls can frequently devastate a family. In those circumstances, the injured party has a right to sue the negligent person or company. The injured party can recover medical expenses, lost wages, damage to future earning capacity, and pain and suffering damages.

Below are some frequently asked questions regarding accidents. If you have further questions or you’ve recently been injured in an accident, contact one of our experienced personal injury attorneys for a free consultation today.

1. What compensation can I receive if I’ve been in a car accident? If you are in a car accident caused by someone else, you could recover damages in the form of lost wages, out-of-pocket expenses, damage to your property, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Even if the accident is your fault, you may have insurance coverage for the damages you sustain.
2. What if I’m in a car accident without insurance? If someone without insurance causes an accident involving you, you could have a claim under your own insurance under uninsured motorist coverage, if you elected this coverage.
3. Can I receive compensation if I’ve been in a motorcycle accident? If you are a motorcycle rider and are in an accident caused by someone else, you are entitled to damages just as if you were in a car. This can include lost wages, out-of-pocket expenses, damage to your property, medical expenses, and pain and suffering.
4. What if I’m in a motorcycle accident without insurance? If someone without insurance causes an accident involving you, you could have a claim under your own insurance under uninsured motorist coverage, if you elected this coverage.
5. Can I receive compensation if I’ve been in a truck accident? If you are in a truck accident caused by someone else, you could recover damages in the form of lost wages, out-of-pocket expenses, damage to your property, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Even if the accident is your fault, you may have insurance coverage for the damages you sustain.
6. What if I’m in a truck accident without insurance? If someone without insurance causes an accident involving you, you could have a claim under your own insurance under uninsured motorist coverage, if you elected this coverage.
7. How does the criminal or traffic case relate to a personal injury claim or lawsuit? A criminal or traffic charge can impact a civil suit for personal injury. If the crime or traffic charge arises out of the same facts and circumstances which create civil liability, a conviction or guilty plea on such charges can be used against the offender in a civil proceeding. But, being found not guilty of criminal charges or traffic violations does not absolve the offender of liability for damages caused to another in a civil proceeding. They are different standards.
8. Can I obtain the cell phone records of the driver? Cell phone records can typically be obtained by subpoena to the cell service provider. Those records are not confidential or protected from the subpoena powers of the court, and the records can be used against you.
9. How can I prove the other driver was responsible? Lawyers skilled in personal injury actions arising from a motor vehicle incident use various tools and techniques to establish the liability of the driver causing the damages. These can rely on many sources of evidence including witness testimony, video camera footage, accident reconstruction, and expert witness testimony.