Insurance Coverage Disputes
Mr. Bartenstein has litigated insurance coverage disputes for over 35 years, and understands a variety of coverage concepts and limitations. if you have a question about whether or not you should be paid for your loss, or how much, then we can help you figure that out.
Insurance Coverage Dispute Cases
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.
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 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.
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.