Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and the parents of Paul Hampton are next-door neighbors and share a common driveway. Hampton accidentally drove his car into the support for the Pr carport which collapsed. The impact damaged the roof, and the home and demolished a ladder and boat in the carport. Hampton's parents were insured by D and the company was promptly notified. D obtained an estimate of repair for $8,471. The lowest estimate P obtained was $13,392. P declined an offer of $8,961 and sued for the amount he claimed for property damage and expenses, plus $15,000 for his attorney fees as well as 250,000 for violation of KRS 304.12-230. The circuit judge dismissed the unfair practice claim. A jury returned an $11,000 verdict which has been satisfied. On appeal, P argued a violation of KRS 304.12-230 and also sought prejudgment interest which had been denied by the circuit court. D contends that the statute does not create a private right of action, but only gives the Commissioner of Insurance authority to perform a regulatory function. KRS 304.12-230 does not specifically provide that any individual may maintain a claim for damages for violation of the act. However, the statute does not state that a violation of its terms is enforceable only by the insurance commissioner, and it does not prohibit a claim by an individual for damages for its breach. The appeals court held that the statute did create a private right of action but denied interest. Both parties appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.