reasonable expectations doctrine in Kentucky

2025The LLC is the only named insured on the policy – and the LLC is not an “individual.” Therefore, the UIM policy only covered losses sustained by Metzger while occupying a scheduled automobile. ... [T]he doctrine of reasonable expectations, “applies only to policies with ambiguous terms.” True v. Raines, 99 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Ky. 2003).

2020However, the doctrine of reasonable expectations, “applies only to policies with ambiguous terms.” True v. Raines, 99 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Ky. 2003).

2015Co., 724 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Ky.1986) (“An essential tool in deciding whether an insurance policy is ambiguous ... is the so-called ‘doctrine of reasonable expectations.’ ”).

2012“An essential tool in deciding whether an insurance policy is ambiguous, and consequently should be interpreted in favor of the insured, is the so-called ‘doctrine of reasonable expectations.’ ” Simon, 724 S.W.2d at 212 .

1999Id. at 75 .

1997In addition, where the reasonable expectations doctrine does apply, as we recently stated in Estate of Swartz v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Co., Ky.App., 949 S.W.2d 72, 76 (1997), “[u]nder controlling Kentucky law, the proper area of inquiry is what [the insureds] could reasonably expect in light of what they actually paid for, not what they personally expected or whether those expectations could be ascertained.” In our opinion, Anderson could not have reasonably anticipated protection for claims such as this given what he paid for and the plain language of his policy.

1997See Woodson v. Manhattan Life Insurance Company of New York, Ky., 743 S.W.2d 835, 839 (1987).

1988In Woodson, supra, our Supreme Court noted that under the “doctrine of reasonable expectations,” an insured is entitled to all the coverage he may reasonably expect to be provided under the policy.

1999The Glasses argue that they paid a premium for UIM coverage, thus the exclusion is void because of the "doctrine of reasonable expectations." That principle or doctrine, first enunciated by this Court in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Stanfield, Ky., 581 S.W.2d 555, 559 (1979), does not pertain to whether a premium was paid for coverage which is excluded, but rather to the clarity of the exclusionary language.

1999The Glasses argue that they paid a premium for UIM coverage, thus the exclusion is void because of the “doctrine of reasonable expectations.” That principle or doctrine, first enunciated by this Court in Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Stanfield, Ky., 581 S.W.2d 555, 559 (1979), does not pertain to whether a premium was paid for coverage which is excluded, but rather to the clarity of the exclusionary language.

2021Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company,14 the trial court ruled the 10 Wehr Constructors, Inc. v. Assurance Co. of America, 384 S.W.3d 680, 685 (Ky.2012). 11 Stone v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut.

2003Co. v. Preston, Ky., 26 S.W.3d 145, 148-49 (2000), and pertains not to whether a premium was paid for coverage that was excluded but to the clarity of the exclusionary language.

2003Co. v. Preston, Ky., 26 S.W.3d 145, 148-49 (2000), and pertains not to whether a premium was paid for coverage that was excluded but to the clarity of the exclusionary language.

1991Simon, supra ; see also Home Folks Mobile Home, Inc. v. Meridian Mutual Insurance Company, Ky.App., 744 S.W.2d 749 (1987); Moore v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Company, Ky. App., 759 S.W.2d 598 (1988).

1991Simon, supra; see also Home Folks Mobile Home, Inc. v. Meridian Mutual Insurance Company, Ky.App., 744 S.W.2d 749 (1987); Moore v. Commonwealth Life Insurance Company, Ky.App., 759 S.W.2d 598 (1988).