Martin v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Martin v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co.

697 S.W.2d 951, 1985 Ky. App. LEXIS 669

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedSeptember 13, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 697 S.W.2d 951 (Martin v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., 697 S.W.2d 951, 1985 Ky. App. LEXIS 669 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLER, Judge.

This is a suit by appellee, Utica Mutual Insurance Company (Utica Mutual), against appellant, Lohren F. Martin, Jr., (Martin), in the Pulaski Circuit Court upon a contract of indemnity. Summary judgment was entered for Utica Mutual. Martin brings this appeal, complaining of improper venue and impropriety of summary judgment.

The venue argument is without merit. This is a transitory action governed by KRS 452.480, and which was properly brought in the county where the defendant (Martin) resided. The statute is written in terms of “residence” and not “domicile.” It is a fundamental rule that a person may have many residences, thus subjecting himself to suit in multiple venues. There is evidence that Martin stayed in Pulaski County at varying times for various purposes and that he maintained a condominium there. This constituted a sufficient basis for a finding of residence within the meaning of the statute.

Nor does the contention that summary judgment (CR 56) was improper have merit. The rule does not require that a case be void of issues but that it be void of “material issues of fact.” The vague denial that Martin had executed the indemnity agreement which bore his name was not, under the circumstances, sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. See Rone v. Daviess County Board of Education, Ky.App., 655 S.W.2d 28 (1983), and Bennett v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Ky., 407 S.W.2d 403 (1966).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court is affirmed.

All concur.

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

MILLER, Judge.

This is a suit by appellee, Utica Mutual Insurance Company (Utica Mutual), against appellant, Lohren F. Martin, Jr., (Martin), in the Pulaski Circuit Court upon a contract of indemnity. Summary judgment was entered for Utica Mutual. Martin brings this appeal, complaining of improper venue and impropriety of summary judgment.

The venue argument is without merit. This is a transitory action governed by KRS 452.480, and which was properly brought in the county where the defendant (Martin) resided. The statute is written in terms of “residence” and not “domicile.” It is a fundamental rule that a person may have many residences, thus subjecting himself to suit in multiple venues. There is evidence that Martin stayed in Pulaski County at varying times for various purposes and that he maintained a condominium there. This constituted a sufficient basis for a finding of residence within the meaning of the statute.

Nor does the contention that summary judgment (CR 56) was improper have merit. The rule does not require that a case be void of issues but that it be void of “material issues of fact.” The vague denial that Martin had executed the indemnity agreement which bore his name was not, under the circumstances, sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. See Rone v. Daviess County Board of Education, Ky.App., 655 S.W.2d 28 (1983), and Bennett v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Ky., 407 S.W.2d 403 (1966).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 S.W.2d 951, 1985 Ky. App. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-utica-mutual-insurance-co-kyctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack