RENDERED: JANUARY 31, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0538-MR
TERRI BREWER AND KEVIN APPELLANTS BREWER
APPEAL FROM HOPKINS CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER BRYAN OGLESBY, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00803
AMERICAN ECONOMY APPELLEES INSURANCE COMPANY AND LINDA WELBORN
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES.
COMBS, JUDGE: Appellants, Terri Brewer and her husband, Kevin Brewer,
appeal from an order of the Hopkins Circuit Court dismissing their complaint
against Appellees, Linda Welborn and American Economy Insurance Company or
American. After our review, we affirm. The material facts are undisputed. On November 23, 2022, Terri
Brewer was badly injured when she fell from an unfloored section of the attic
space above Welborn’s garage. Linda Welborn is Terri’s mother.
Welborn obtained her homeowner’s insurance policy from American
Economy Insurance. The policy covered Welborn’s personal liability for damages
incurred as a result of an accidental injury sustained by someone on her property
and also provided counsel to defend her in a legal action aimed at establishing her
personal liability. The coverage limits were $300,000.00. The policy also
provided limited medical payments (without regard to liability) to a person injured
as a result of an accident on Welborn’s premises. Following the accident,
American Economy Insurance paid $2,000.00 for Terri Brewer’s medical
expenses. Welborn made a claim for the liability coverage.
On November 27, 2023, the Brewers filed an action against Welborn,
American Economy Insurance, and the homebuilder. They alleged that American
was strictly liable to them for the sum of $300,000.00 based on the insurer’s failure
to inspect Welborn’s property. They alleged that Welborn agreed with their
contention. They also alleged that American Economy Insurance engaged in
unfair claims settlement practices and that it otherwise failed to act in good faith by
refusing to pay the insurance claim. Finally, they alleged that the homebuilder was
liable for its negligent construction of the unfloored attic space above the garage.
-2- The Brewers did not allege that Terri suffered personal injury as a result of any
negligence on Welborn’s part.
The homebuilder answered and denied the Brewers’ allegations. It is
not a party to this appeal.
Before filing an answer, Welborn filed a motion requesting the court
to dismiss her from the action. She explained that she was not a proper party to the
proceedings because the Brewers made no allegations against her and did not seek
to recover damages from her. American also filed a motion to dismiss. It argued,
in part, that the Brewers failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
because they never asserted a liability claim against its insured. (CR1 12.02(f)). It
explained that under no circumstance could it be held strictly and directly liable for
Terri’s injuries. Moreover, in light of these facts, it argued that an action for bad
faith was not viable as a matter of law.
In response, and consistent with the allegations made in their
complaint, the Brewers argued, in part, that American Economy Insurance was
strictly liable to them because it failed to inspect Welborn’s property before issuing
its policy of insurance. They argued that the adjuster sent by American failed to
properly investigate the dangerous condition of the attic space above the garage
and that the insurer had admitted its liability by paying $2,000.00 to Terri for her
1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3- medical expenses. Finally, they argued that the failure of American to pay the
claim was outrageous.
By orders entered on April 5, 2024, the Hopkins Circuit Court granted
the separate motions of Welborn and American Economy Insurance to dismiss the
Brewers’ action against them for failure to state a claim for which relief could be
granted. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Brewers contend that the circuit court erred by granting
the motion to dismiss. They argue that American Economy Insurance is strictly
liable to them under the terms of the insurance contract because American failed to
inspect the insured’s property both before and after Terri Brewer fell from the attic
space above the garage. Additionally, they contend that the arbitrary refusal of
American to pay its policy limits constitutes an unfair claims settlement practice.
Based upon these arguments, they contend that the circuit court’s decision to
dismiss their complaint is palpable error.
American argues that the Brewers’ complaint failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted because the insurance company did not agree to
be directly responsible for any and all accidents on Welborn’s premises. Instead,
American Economy Insurance agreed to provide personal liability coverage to
Welborn where her legal liability for an injury was implicated or established.
American contends that where there has been no allegation that Welborn was
-4- responsible for Terri’s injuries, the essential condition predicate to invoke coverage
is missing. We agree.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted admits as true the material facts of the complaint. Fox v. Grayson, 317
S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2010). Consequently, when a motion to dismiss on this basis is
filed, the trial court is asked to determine only whether the facts as alleged in the
complaint establish a basis for relief. Because this is a pure question of law, we do
not defer to the trial court’s determination upon our review. Id. Instead, we
review the issue de novo. Id.
Pursuant to the express terms of its contract, American Economy
Insurance was not independently liable for the allegedly dangerous condition of
Welborn’s property. Instead, the policy provided coverage to the policyholder for
damages that she might legally be liable to pay to third parties. The Brewers’
complaint did not assert any legal liability against Wilborn, the insured. Nor did it
seek to recover damages from her.
Tort victims do not have a direct cause of action against a tortfeasor’s
insurance company. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
808 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Ky. 1991) (stating “[i]n ordinary circumstances, an injured
party must first obtain judgment against the opposing party defendant and then
seek enforcement of the judgment rendered in an action against the defendant’s
-5- indemnitor”); Cuppy v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assur. Co., 378 S.W.2d 629, 632
(Ky. 1964) (stating “[t]he rule is (with the possible exception in case of insolvency
or bankruptcy, neither of which is pleaded or proved here) that an injured person
cannot sue the insurance company in his original action against the insured”); N.Y.
Indem. Co. v. Ewen, 221 Ky. 114, 298 S.W. 182, 185 (1927) (holding plaintiff
“had no direct cause of action against the insurance company until she had
obtained a judgment against the assured”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
RENDERED: JANUARY 31, 2025; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0538-MR
TERRI BREWER AND KEVIN APPELLANTS BREWER
APPEAL FROM HOPKINS CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER BRYAN OGLESBY, JUDGE ACTION NO. 23-CI-00803
AMERICAN ECONOMY APPELLEES INSURANCE COMPANY AND LINDA WELBORN
OPINION AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; CETRULO AND COMBS, JUDGES.
COMBS, JUDGE: Appellants, Terri Brewer and her husband, Kevin Brewer,
appeal from an order of the Hopkins Circuit Court dismissing their complaint
against Appellees, Linda Welborn and American Economy Insurance Company or
American. After our review, we affirm. The material facts are undisputed. On November 23, 2022, Terri
Brewer was badly injured when she fell from an unfloored section of the attic
space above Welborn’s garage. Linda Welborn is Terri’s mother.
Welborn obtained her homeowner’s insurance policy from American
Economy Insurance. The policy covered Welborn’s personal liability for damages
incurred as a result of an accidental injury sustained by someone on her property
and also provided counsel to defend her in a legal action aimed at establishing her
personal liability. The coverage limits were $300,000.00. The policy also
provided limited medical payments (without regard to liability) to a person injured
as a result of an accident on Welborn’s premises. Following the accident,
American Economy Insurance paid $2,000.00 for Terri Brewer’s medical
expenses. Welborn made a claim for the liability coverage.
On November 27, 2023, the Brewers filed an action against Welborn,
American Economy Insurance, and the homebuilder. They alleged that American
was strictly liable to them for the sum of $300,000.00 based on the insurer’s failure
to inspect Welborn’s property. They alleged that Welborn agreed with their
contention. They also alleged that American Economy Insurance engaged in
unfair claims settlement practices and that it otherwise failed to act in good faith by
refusing to pay the insurance claim. Finally, they alleged that the homebuilder was
liable for its negligent construction of the unfloored attic space above the garage.
-2- The Brewers did not allege that Terri suffered personal injury as a result of any
negligence on Welborn’s part.
The homebuilder answered and denied the Brewers’ allegations. It is
not a party to this appeal.
Before filing an answer, Welborn filed a motion requesting the court
to dismiss her from the action. She explained that she was not a proper party to the
proceedings because the Brewers made no allegations against her and did not seek
to recover damages from her. American also filed a motion to dismiss. It argued,
in part, that the Brewers failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
because they never asserted a liability claim against its insured. (CR1 12.02(f)). It
explained that under no circumstance could it be held strictly and directly liable for
Terri’s injuries. Moreover, in light of these facts, it argued that an action for bad
faith was not viable as a matter of law.
In response, and consistent with the allegations made in their
complaint, the Brewers argued, in part, that American Economy Insurance was
strictly liable to them because it failed to inspect Welborn’s property before issuing
its policy of insurance. They argued that the adjuster sent by American failed to
properly investigate the dangerous condition of the attic space above the garage
and that the insurer had admitted its liability by paying $2,000.00 to Terri for her
1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3- medical expenses. Finally, they argued that the failure of American to pay the
claim was outrageous.
By orders entered on April 5, 2024, the Hopkins Circuit Court granted
the separate motions of Welborn and American Economy Insurance to dismiss the
Brewers’ action against them for failure to state a claim for which relief could be
granted. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the Brewers contend that the circuit court erred by granting
the motion to dismiss. They argue that American Economy Insurance is strictly
liable to them under the terms of the insurance contract because American failed to
inspect the insured’s property both before and after Terri Brewer fell from the attic
space above the garage. Additionally, they contend that the arbitrary refusal of
American to pay its policy limits constitutes an unfair claims settlement practice.
Based upon these arguments, they contend that the circuit court’s decision to
dismiss their complaint is palpable error.
American argues that the Brewers’ complaint failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted because the insurance company did not agree to
be directly responsible for any and all accidents on Welborn’s premises. Instead,
American Economy Insurance agreed to provide personal liability coverage to
Welborn where her legal liability for an injury was implicated or established.
American contends that where there has been no allegation that Welborn was
-4- responsible for Terri’s injuries, the essential condition predicate to invoke coverage
is missing. We agree.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted admits as true the material facts of the complaint. Fox v. Grayson, 317
S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2010). Consequently, when a motion to dismiss on this basis is
filed, the trial court is asked to determine only whether the facts as alleged in the
complaint establish a basis for relief. Because this is a pure question of law, we do
not defer to the trial court’s determination upon our review. Id. Instead, we
review the issue de novo. Id.
Pursuant to the express terms of its contract, American Economy
Insurance was not independently liable for the allegedly dangerous condition of
Welborn’s property. Instead, the policy provided coverage to the policyholder for
damages that she might legally be liable to pay to third parties. The Brewers’
complaint did not assert any legal liability against Wilborn, the insured. Nor did it
seek to recover damages from her.
Tort victims do not have a direct cause of action against a tortfeasor’s
insurance company. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
808 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Ky. 1991) (stating “[i]n ordinary circumstances, an injured
party must first obtain judgment against the opposing party defendant and then
seek enforcement of the judgment rendered in an action against the defendant’s
-5- indemnitor”); Cuppy v. Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assur. Co., 378 S.W.2d 629, 632
(Ky. 1964) (stating “[t]he rule is (with the possible exception in case of insolvency
or bankruptcy, neither of which is pleaded or proved here) that an injured person
cannot sue the insurance company in his original action against the insured”); N.Y.
Indem. Co. v. Ewen, 221 Ky. 114, 298 S.W. 182, 185 (1927) (holding plaintiff
“had no direct cause of action against the insurance company until she had
obtained a judgment against the assured”).
Furthermore, the decision of American Economy Insurance to pay
$2,000 voluntarily to Terri Brewer under the policy’s medical payments provision
was not an admission of its insured’s liability. The policy provided specifically
that payment pursuant to this coverage “is not an admission of liability by any
insured or us.”
Finally, where the Brewers’ complaint failed to assert a viable cause
of action against Welborn, it did not make a colorable claim that American
Economy Insurance acted in bad faith or engaged in unfair claims settlement
practices or outrageous conduct by failing to pay the claim. A bad faith action is
first and foremost dependent upon the insurer’s obligation to pay the claim under
the terms of its policy. Hollaway v. Direct General Insurance Company of
Mississippi, Inc., 497 S.W.3d 733, 737-38 (Ky. 2016). Where it is clear that
-6- American Economy Insurance was justified in denying the claim, the Brewers
cannot show that the insurer acted in bad faith.
To summarize, the Brewers’ complaint failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. Consequently, the trial court did not err by granting
the motion to dismiss pursuant to CR 12.02(f).
We affirm the order of the Hopkins Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE AMERICAN ECONOMY Wendell Holloway INSURANCE COMPANY: Madisonville, Kentucky Douglas W. Langdon J. Kendrick Wells, IV Laura M. Haara Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LINDA WELBORN:
Christopher M. Mussler Alexander J. Keubbing Louisville, Kentucky
-7-