John v. Bennett Truck Transport, LLC

E.D. Kentucky

John v. Bennett Truck Transport, LLC

DecidedSeptember 5, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00058

StatusUnknown

This text of John v. Bennett Truck Transport, LLC (John v. Bennett Truck Transport, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John v. Bennett Truck Transport, LLC, (E.D. Ky. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON

EH KEH LAH JOHN and KATHRYN CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-58-KKC ELIZABETH STALLARD, Plaintiffs, V. OPINION & ORDER BENNETT MOTOR EXPRESS, LLC and COREY W. MCCARRON, Defendants. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal. (DE 14.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted. This case arises from a car accident that occurred on January 27, 2024, on I-75 in Kentucky. The Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court alleging negligence, negligence per se, and bad faith claims. (DE 1 at 7–16.) The Defendants now move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the bad faith claims. The Plaintiffs bad faith claims are brought pursuant to the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (“UCSPA”). The Defendants argue that they cannot be liable for the bad faith claims because the UCSPA only applies to “entities engaged in the business of insurance” and the complaint fails to allege that they are such entities. (DE 14 at 3.) The Defendants filed their motion on July 7, 2025. Under Local Rule 7.1(c), the Plaintiffs had until July 28, 2025, to file a response in opposition. That time has expired, and the Plaintiffs have not filed a response or requested an extension. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion is unopposed. See LR 7.1(c) (“Failure to timely respond to a motion may be grounds for granting the motion.”). This alone could be sufficient to grant the motion. Notwithstanding, the Court ultimately finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible claim for relief under the UCSPA. The Defendants correctly observe that only “entities engaged in the business of insurance” can be held liable under the UCSPA. See Davidson v. Am. Freightways, Inc., 25 S.W.3d 94, 94 (Ky. 2000) (“We conclude that both the statute and the common law tort apply only to persons or entities engaged in the business of insurance.”). And they also correctly observe that the complaint fails to allege that either of the Defendants are “persons or entities engaged in the business of insurance.” Jd. As such, the Court finds that the complaint fails to state enough facts to state a plausible claim to relief under the UCSPA. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal (DE 14) is GRANTED. Counts VII and VIII of the Complaint are dismissed. This □□ day of September, 2025.

Gore $5, Bataiue le We oe eA22N« caLpweL xy Wak } fe) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE : AS EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON

EH KEH LAH JOHN and KATHRYN CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-58-KKC ELIZABETH STALLARD, Plaintiffs, V. OPINION & ORDER BENNETT MOTOR EXPRESS, LLC and COREY W. MCCARRON, Defendants. *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal. (DE 14.) For the following reasons, the motion is granted. This case arises from a car accident that occurred on January 27, 2024, on I-75 in Kentucky. The Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court alleging negligence, negligence per se, and bad faith claims. (DE 1 at 7–16.) The Defendants now move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the bad faith claims. The Plaintiffs bad faith claims are brought pursuant to the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (“UCSPA”). The Defendants argue that they cannot be liable for the bad faith claims because the UCSPA only applies to “entities engaged in the business of insurance” and the complaint fails to allege that they are such entities. (DE 14 at 3.) The Defendants filed their motion on July 7, 2025. Under Local Rule 7.1(c), the Plaintiffs had until July 28, 2025, to file a response in opposition. That time has expired, and the Plaintiffs have not filed a response or requested an extension. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion is unopposed. See LR 7.1(c) (“Failure to timely respond to a motion may be grounds for granting the motion.”). This alone could be sufficient to grant the motion. Notwithstanding, the Court ultimately finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible claim for relief under the UCSPA. The Defendants correctly observe that only “entities engaged in the business of insurance” can be held liable under the UCSPA. See Davidson v. Am. Freightways, Inc., 25 S.W.3d 94, 94 (Ky. 2000) (“We conclude that both the statute and the common law tort apply only to persons or entities engaged in the business of insurance.”). And they also correctly observe that the complaint fails to allege that either of the Defendants are “persons or entities engaged in the business of insurance.” Jd. As such, the Court finds that the complaint fails to state enough facts to state a plausible claim to relief under the UCSPA. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal (DE 14) is GRANTED. Counts VII and VIII of the Complaint are dismissed. This □□ day of September, 2025.

Gore $5, Bataiue le We oe eA22N« caLpweL xy Wak } fe) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE : AS EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John v. Bennett Truck Transport, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-v-bennett-truck-transport-llc-kyed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack