payment claim in Kentucky

2024The court asserted that “[t]here is no precedent for holding an insurance agency liable under the UCSPA for a paying a claim to its insured, and subsequently bringing a breach of contract claim against its insured for allegedly prejudicing its subrogation rights.” The court reasoned that “to the extent that the claims raised concern[s about] conduct subsequent to and outside of the claims settlement process, those claims are not redressable under the UCSPA[,]” pursuant to Knotts v. Zurich Insurance Co., 197 S.W.3d 512 (Ky. 2006).

2024The court asserted that “[t]here is no precedent for holding an insurance agency liable under the UCSPA for a paying a claim to its insured, and subsequently bringing a breach of contract claim against its insured for allegedly prejudicing its subrogation rights.” The court reasoned that “to the extent that the claims raised concern[s about] conduct subsequent to and outside of the claims settlement process, those claims are not redressable under the UCSPA[,]” pursuant to Knotts v. Zurich Insurance Co., 197 S.W.3d 512 (Ky. 2006).

1963“The rule is that if there is no authority of law for the payment of a claim, the order making the allowance is void, and the money paid may be recovered in a direct proceeding by proper officers of the county, or by a citizen and taxpayer upon their failure to sue after demand, and for the same reason payment may be resisted * * * but if there is authority of law for the payment, the order of the fiscal court making the allowance is not void and the only relief is by appeal.” Bell Fiscal Court v. Helton, 1935, 258 Ky. 219 , 79 S.W.2d 683 (allowance to jailer for labor and expenses over the pe

1963“The rule is that if there is no authority of law for the payment of a claim, the order making the allowance is void, and the money paid may be recovered in a direct proceeding by proper officers of the county, or by a citizen and taxpayer upon their failure to sue after demand, and for the same reason payment may be resisted * * * but if there is authority of law for the payment, the order of the fiscal court making the allowance is not void and the only relief is by appeal.” Bell Fiscal Court v. Helton, 1935, 258 Ky. 219 , 79 S.W.2d 683 (allowance to jailer for labor and expenses over the pe

1963“The rule is that if there is no authority of law for the payment of a claim, the order making the allowance is void, and the money paid may be recovered in a direct proceeding by proper officers of the county, or by a citizen and taxpayer upon their failure to sue after demand, and for the same reason payment may be resisted * * * but if there is authority of law for the payment, the order of the fiscal court making the allowance is not void and the only relief is by appeal.” Bell Fiscal Court v. Helton, 1935, 258 Ky. 219 , 79 S.W.2d 683 (allowance to jailer for labor and expenses over the pe

1963“The rule is that if there is no authority of law for the payment of a claim, the order making the allowance is void, and the money paid may be recovered in a direct proceeding by proper officers of the county, or by a citizen and taxpayer upon their failure to sue after demand, and for the same reason payment may be resisted * * * but if there is authority of law for the payment, the order of the fiscal court making the allowance is not void and the only relief is by appeal.” Bell Fiscal Court v. Helton, 1935, 258 Ky. 219 , 79 S.W.2d 683 (allowance to jailer for labor and expenses over the pe

1949The Court denied her relief, stating, 83 Ky. at page 510 , 4 Am.

1939Appellants cite and rely on the case of State Highway Commission v. Henderson County Board of Education, 260 Ky. 459 , 86 S. W. (2d) 123 , but that case is easily distinguished.

1939Appellants cite and rely on the case of State Highway Commission v. Henderson County Board of Education, 260 Ky. 459 , 86 S. W. (2d) 123 , but that case is easily distinguished.

1938Pigman & Co. v. Slone, 107 S. W. 230 , 32 Ky. Law Rep. 798 ; Suter v. Stone, Auditor, 108 Ky. 518 , 56 S. W. 971 , 22 Ky. Law Rep. 224 ; Graves County v. Wallace, 144 Ky. 194 , 138 S. W. 306 . , We have held that a custom of paying reasonable compensation for services, could not justify the payment of a claim, in the absence of a provision for its *777 payment.

1938Pigman & Co. v. Slone, 107 S. W. 230 , 32 Ky. Law Rep. 798 ; Suter v. Stone, Auditor, 108 Ky. 518 , 56 S. W. 971 , 22 Ky. Law Rep. 224 ; Graves County v. Wallace, 144 Ky. 194 , 138 S. W. 306 . , We have held that a custom of paying reasonable compensation for services, could not justify the payment of a claim, in the absence of a provision for its *777 payment.

1938Pigman & Co. v. Slone, 107 S. W. 230 , 32 Ky. Law Rep. 798 ; Suter v. Stone, Auditor, 108 Ky. 518 , 56 S. W. 971 , 22 Ky. Law Rep. 224 ; Graves County v. Wallace, 144 Ky. 194 , 138 S. W. 306 . , We have held that a custom of paying reasonable compensation for services, could not justify the payment of a claim, in the absence of a provision for its *777 payment.

1938Pigman & Co. v. Slone, 107 S. W. 230 , 32 Ky. Law Rep. 798 ; Suter v. Stone, Auditor, 108 Ky. 518 , 56 S. W. 971 , 22 Ky. Law Rep. 224 ; Graves County v. Wallace, 144 Ky. 194 , 138 S. W. 306 . , We have held that a custom of paying reasonable compensation for services, could not justify the payment of a claim, in the absence of a provision for its *777 payment.

1936In Huffman v. Hatcher et al., 178 Ky. 8 , 198 S. W. 236 , L.

1936In Huffman v. Hatcher et al., 178 Ky. 8 , 198 S. W. 236 , L.

1935When he deposited the Williamsburg check on January 11, 1932, lie signed the regular form of deposit slip containing conditions (designed to meet the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in City of Douglas v. Federal Reserve Bank, 271 U. S. 489 , 46 S. Ct. 554 , 70 L.

1935When he deposited the Williamsburg check on January 11, 1932, lie signed the regular form of deposit slip containing conditions (designed to meet the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in City of Douglas v. Federal Reserve Bank, 271 U. S. 489 , 46 S. Ct. 554 , 70 L.

1935The rule is that if there is not authority of law for the payment’ of the claim, the order making the allowance is void, and the money paid may be recovered in a direct proceeding by proper officers of the county, or by a citizen and taxpayer upon *222 their failure to sue after demand, and for the same reason payment may be resisted (Hickman County v. Scarborough, 150 Ky. 1 , 149 S. W. 1116 ; Mills v. Lantrip, 170 Ky. 81 , 185 S. W. 514 ); but if there is authority of law for the payment, the order of the fiscal court making the allowance is not void and the only relief is by appeal.

1935The rule is that if there is not authority of law for the payment’ of the claim, the order making the allowance is void, and the money paid may be recovered in a direct proceeding by proper officers of the county, or by a citizen and taxpayer upon *222 their failure to sue after demand, and for the same reason payment may be resisted (Hickman County v. Scarborough, 150 Ky. 1 , 149 S. W. 1116 ; Mills v. Lantrip, 170 Ky. 81 , 185 S. W. 514 ); but if there is authority of law for the payment, the order of the fiscal court making the allowance is not void and the only relief is by appeal.

1935The rule is that if there is not authority of law for the payment’ of the claim, the order making the allowance is void, and the money paid may be recovered in a direct proceeding by proper officers of the county, or by a citizen and taxpayer upon *222 their failure to sue after demand, and for the same reason payment may be resisted (Hickman County v. Scarborough, 150 Ky. 1 , 149 S. W. 1116 ; Mills v. Lantrip, 170 Ky. 81 , 185 S. W. 514 ); but if there is authority of law for the payment, the order of the fiscal court making the allowance is not void and the only relief is by appeal.

1935The rule is that if there is not authority of law for the payment’ of the claim, the order making the allowance is void, and the money paid may be recovered in a direct proceeding by proper officers of the county, or by a citizen and taxpayer upon *222 their failure to sue after demand, and for the same reason payment may be resisted (Hickman County v. Scarborough, 150 Ky. 1 , 149 S. W. 1116 ; Mills v. Lantrip, 170 Ky. 81 , 185 S. W. 514 ); but if there is authority of law for the payment, the order of the fiscal court making the allowance is not void and the only relief is by appeal.

1934In Bouton v. Doty, 69 Conn. 531 , 37 A. 1064 , the vendor conveyed to the defendant his personal and real property, reserving to himself a lien on the estate, with a right to use the personalty, with the power to mortgage the real estate to raise money for his benefit during his life, the grantee agreeing as a part consideration to furnish the vendor with so much money as the latter’s necessities might require over and above any income realized from the life estate.

1934In Bouton v. Doty, 69 Conn. 531 , 37 A. 1064 , the vendor conveyed to the defendant his personal and real property, reserving to himself a lien on the estate, with a right to use the personalty, with the power to mortgage the real estate to raise money for his benefit during his life, the grantee agreeing as a part consideration to furnish the vendor with so much money as the latter’s necessities might require over and above any income realized from the life estate.

1918Elkhorn Land & Improvement Co. v. Ratliffe, 181 Ky. 603 ; Harris &c. v. Tuttle, &c., 23 Ky. Law Rep., 220 ; Jacobs v. Jacobs, Guardian, &c., 23 Ky. Law Rep. 186 ; Adkisson v. Dent, &c., 88 Ky. 628 ; McClure, Admr. v. Anchor Roller Mills Ass’ee, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 509 .

1918Elkhorn Land & Improvement Co. v. Ratliffe, 181 Ky. 603 ; Harris &c. v. Tuttle, &c., 23 Ky. Law Rep., 220 ; Jacobs v. Jacobs, Guardian, &c., 23 Ky. Law Rep. 186 ; Adkisson v. Dent, &c., 88 Ky. 628 ; McClure, Admr. v. Anchor Roller Mills Ass’ee, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 509 .

1917That proposition is thus stated in the brief for appellant: “That a mortgage of property to be acquired in the future is void, against the mortgagor’s creditors and purchasei's for value, and if the mortgagee has any lien on after-acquired property, it is inferior to an attachment lien on such property,” In support of this statement, appellant cites the following authorities: Ross v. Wilson, Peter & Co., 7 Bush 29 ; Vinson v. Hallowell, 10 Bush 538 ; Manly v. Bitzer, 91 Ky. 596 ; Loth & Haas v. Carty, 85 Ky. 591 ; Patterson v. Louisville Trust Co., 17 Ky. Law Rep. 234 ; Wender Blue Gem Coal Co

1917That proposition is thus stated in the brief for appellant: “That a mortgage of property to be acquired in the future is void, against the mortgagor’s creditors and purchasei's for value, and if the mortgagee has any lien on after-acquired property, it is inferior to an attachment lien on such property,” In support of this statement, appellant cites the following authorities: Ross v. Wilson, Peter & Co., 7 Bush 29 ; Vinson v. Hallowell, 10 Bush 538 ; Manly v. Bitzer, 91 Ky. 596 ; Loth & Haas v. Carty, 85 Ky. 591 ; Patterson v. Louisville Trust Co., 17 Ky. Law Rep. 234 ; Wender Blue Gem Coal Co

1917That proposition is thus stated in the brief for appellant: “That a mortgage of property to be acquired in the future is void, against the mortgagor’s creditors and purchasei's for value, and if the mortgagee has any lien on after-acquired property, it is inferior to an attachment lien on such property,” In support of this statement, appellant cites the following authorities: Ross v. Wilson, Peter & Co., 7 Bush 29 ; Vinson v. Hallowell, 10 Bush 538 ; Manly v. Bitzer, 91 Ky. 596 ; Loth & Haas v. Carty, 85 Ky. 591 ; Patterson v. Louisville Trust Co., 17 Ky. Law Rep. 234 ; Wender Blue Gem Coal Co

1917That proposition is thus stated in the brief for appellant: “That a mortgage of property to be acquired in the future is void, against the mortgagor’s creditors and purchasei's for value, and if the mortgagee has any lien on after-acquired property, it is inferior to an attachment lien on such property,” In support of this statement, appellant cites the following authorities: Ross v. Wilson, Peter & Co., 7 Bush 29 ; Vinson v. Hallowell, 10 Bush 538 ; Manly v. Bitzer, 91 Ky. 596 ; Loth & Haas v. Carty, 85 Ky. 591 ; Patterson v. Louisville Trust Co., 17 Ky. Law Rep. 234 ; Wender Blue Gem Coal Co

1917That proposition is thus stated in the brief for appellant: “That a mortgage of property to be acquired in the future is void, against the mortgagor’s creditors and purchasei's for value, and if the mortgagee has any lien on after-acquired property, it is inferior to an attachment lien on such property,” In support of this statement, appellant cites the following authorities: Ross v. Wilson, Peter & Co., 7 Bush 29 ; Vinson v. Hallowell, 10 Bush 538 ; Manly v. Bitzer, 91 Ky. 596 ; Loth & Haas v. Carty, 85 Ky. 591 ; Patterson v. Louisville Trust Co., 17 Ky. Law Rep. 234 ; Wender Blue Gem Coal Co

1906Thompson v. Heffner’s Ex’rs, 11 Bush, 354 ; Lear v. Totten, 14 Bush, 101 .

1890(Hopkins v. Stout, 6 Bush, 375 ; Craig, &c., v. Garnett’s Adm’r, &c., 9 Bush, 97 .) The petition avers that the personal estate of the decedent, or the most of it, had been distributed, and sets out, inter alia, a description of the land received by the heirs, and asks that it be subjected to the payment of the claim.

1890(Hopkins v. Stout, 6 Bush, 375 ; Craig, &c., v. Garnett’s Adm’r, &c., 9 Bush, 97 .) The petition avers that the personal estate of the decedent, or the most of it, had been distributed, and sets out, inter alia, a description of the land received by the heirs, and asks that it be subjected to the payment of the claim.

1877Nixon v. Jacks, 16 B.

1865Jones and Hall ( 7 B.