Cases
Mr. Bartenstein’s Published Cases
A collection of cases that Mr. Bartenstein has worked.
Sellers of real property sought specific performance of auction bid made by by-bidder, who had been hired by auctioneer ostensibly for sellers’ benefit, and for damages. Court held that the by-bidder was acting as an agent for the sellers, via extension with the auctioneer, and that, since no memorandum of sale was made, the action failed because it violated the statute of frauds.
Involved whether the Federal Court should exercise its discretion to hear a declaratory judgment action on coverage issues, while the underlying tort case is still pending in state court, also known as the Abstention Doctrine.
Involved dispute between the insurers of two vehicles as to which one should pay the no-fault benefits for a pedestrian that was struck by the first vehicle, and knocked onto the second vehicle. Issue of which vehicle caused the injuries was not relevant. Assigned claims insurer was involved because the first vehicle left the scene. It was found to owe secondary coverage.
Horses in a pasture are not an attractive nuisance in Kentucky to where a child injured by a horse could sue the owner of the real estate.
Involved whether the law of sales would apply to determine ownership for insurance purposes when an accident occurs after a dealer has delivered a vehicle, but where the title has not yet been issued.
Involving claims of insurance bad faith on a cargo coverage claim. Established the principle under Kentucky law that an insurer has the right to litigate a debatable issue of first impression on a policy interpretation issue where different jurisdictions had reached different conclusions.
Involved an “owned or available for regular use” exclusion. No-fault insurer did not owe coverage to insured’s son, who was injured in accident while driving his own uninsured automobile, despite living in the same household as his father.
Involved defending claims of insurance bad faith in the context of a third-party claim. Successfully obtained a reversal of a $1 million verdict against the insurers.
Involved the issue of whether a UIM carrier that advances limits in order to preserve its subrogation rights is entitled to recover the difference between the amount advanced and a lesser amount ultimately awarded by the jury in a trial of the underlying negligence and damage claims.
Involved a coverage dispute concerning whether or not coverage could be denied to an omnibus insured who happens to be riding as a passenger in a 1-vehicle accident while his son was driving with his permission.
Up-the-Ladder immunity for worker’s compensation claims applied to the utility that retained an independent contractor to test smoke-stack emissions. Deemed to be a regular and recurring part of the utilities business.
An attorney sued a court-appointed supervisor of visitation for defamation because of statements made in a report to the Court filed by the psychologist. The statements made in the course of judicial proceedings were found to be privileged.
Slip and fall on ice and suit against the home’s owners and real estate agents having an open house. The court held there is no duty to remedy or warn, and thus no liability for natural, open and obvious conditions.
Involved whether the insurance provided to a lessee of a vehicle will be considered primary over the insurance afforded to the repossession agent that picked up the car. The repossession agent’s policy contained an excess other insurance clause which made it secondary to the lessee’s insurance policy, which was primary, and could not recover against the excess insurer.
Involved the question of whether Louisville Metro can limit its exposure to liability as the owner of a take-home police car when it is being driven by an off-duty officer.
Involved fraud in the application for insurance when a son listed a vehicle that he owned on his father’s policy as if the father owned the vehicle. Jury found coverage, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision.
Involved whether the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over any breach of trust claims raised in an objection to a Petition to Approve Trustee’s KRS 386B.8-180 Notice/Accounting provided upon termination or removal of the Trustee. Despite involving separate claims contesting gifts that were approved by the Trustee, and for breach of fiduciary duty, the beneficiaries were required to litigate those claims in the District Court.
Involved whether a probate court action to remove a trustee means the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction of all other claims that might be raised, even though the motion to remove the trustees was denied. Subsequent action for breach of fiduciary duty could be filed in Circuit Court.
Involved issues surrounding whether a named, but not appointed Executrix from Maryland, has standing to pursue claims on behalf of the decedent’s estate against the personal representative of a the Kentucky Estate of her estranged, but not divorced husband.
Involved the question of decanting a trust, and whether a spouse-trustee could decant to allow herself to remain a beneficiary before the couple’s divorce became final.
Involved the question of whether a Plaintiff needs to follow the Hague Convention in attempting to serve a Mexican resident driver of a vehicle that allegedly caused a fatal accident.