(1) Any person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family
or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or
property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by another person of
a method, act or practice declared unlawful by KRS 367.170, may bring an action
under the Rules of Civil Procedure in the Circuit Court in which the seller or lessor
resides or has his principal place of business or is doing business, or in the Circuit
Court in which the purchaser or lessee of goods or services resides, or where the
transaction in question occurred, to recover actual damages. The court may, in its
discretion, award actual damages and may provide such equitable relief as it deems
necessary or proper. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit a person's
right to seek punitive damages where appropriate.
(2) Upon commencement of any action brought under subsection (1) of this section, the
clerk of the court shall mail a copy of the complaint or other initial pleading to the
Attorney General and, upon entry of any judgment or decree in the action, shall mail
a copy of such judgment or decree to the Attorney General.
(3) In any action brought by a person under this section, the court may award, to the
prevailing party, in addition to the relief provided in this section, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.
(4) Any permanent injunction, judgment or order of the court made under KRS 367.190
shall be prima facie evidence in an action brought under this section that the
respondent used or employed a method, act or practice declared unlawful by KRS
367.170.
(5) Any person bringing an action under this section must bring such action within one
(1) year after any action of the Attorney General has been terminated or within two
(2) years after the violation of KRS 367.170, whichever is later.
History: Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 308, sec. 62. -- Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec.
12.
Notes of Decisions
Arnold v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 392 F. Supp. 3d 747 (E.D. Ky. 2019).
· cites it 10× “In response, Plaintiffs argue-without relevant supporting authority-that Kentucky statute provides that "a person bringing a claim for violation of the KCPA related to an insurance policy does so under [ Ky.”
Alexander v. S & M MOTORS, INC., 28 S.W.3d 303 (Ky. 2000).
· cites it 10× “The issue presented in each of these cases involves a question of first impression concerning the award of attorney fees under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), KRS 367.220(3). We granted discretionary review to resolve a split of authority in the Kentucky Court of…”
Craig & Bishop, Inc. v. Piles, 247 S.W.3d 897 (Ky. 2008).
· cites it 8× “170 and KRS 367.220 — explicitly requires that a binding contract be reached for a purchaser damaged by unlawful trade practices to have a private right of action.”
Foster v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 219 F. Supp. 3d 590 (E.D. Ky. 2016).
· cites it 10× “Foster’s first amended complaint, he claims he “has ascertained a loss of money” as a result of American Fire’s actions; that he “has suffered inconvenience, and emotional and mental pain and distress;” and that he “faces long term uncertainty as to his financial future and is…”
Stevens v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 759 S.W.2d 819 (Ky. 1988).
· cites it 5× “The Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, KRS 367.220, does provide a homeowner with a remedy for the conduct of their own insurance company in denying such a claim because the act has provided a “statutory” bad faith cause of action.”
Tracker Marine, L.P. v. Ogle, 108 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “505/10a; Kentucky: Ky.Rev.Stat. § 367.220(1); Missouri: Mo. Rev.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 5× “KRS 367.220(1). Ford asserts that it committed no unfair or unconscionable act which was unlawful under the Consumer Protection Act.”
Craig v. Keene, 32 S.W.3d 90 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “The Keenes's attorney, William Erwin, filed a motion for attorney fees and costs under KRS 367.220, which authorizes such where there has been a violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.”
Naiser v. Unilever United States, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 2d 727 (W.D. Ky. 2013).
· cites it 3× “§ 367.220. It states: Action for recovery of money or property; tvhen action may be brought — (1) Any person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property .”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.220(1) — 68 cases
Stevens v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 759 S.W.2d 819 (Ky. 1988).
“The Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, KRS 367.220, does provide a homeowner with a remedy for the conduct of their own insurance company in denying such a claim because the act has provided a “statutory” bad faith cause of action.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
“KRS 367.220(1). Ford asserts that it committed no unfair or unconscionable act which was unlawful under the Consumer Protection Act.”
Arnold v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 392 F. Supp. 3d 747 (E.D. Ky. 2019).
“In response, Plaintiffs argue-without relevant supporting authority-that Kentucky statute provides that "a person bringing a claim for violation of the KCPA related to an insurance policy does so under [ Ky.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.220(3) — 16 cases
Alexander v. S & M MOTORS, INC., 28 S.W.3d 303 (Ky. 2000).
“The issue presented in each of these cases involves a question of first impression concerning the award of attorney fees under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), KRS 367.220(3). We granted discretionary review to resolve a split of authority in the Kentucky Court of…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978).
“KRS 367.220(1). Ford asserts that it committed no unfair or unconscionable act which was unlawful under the Consumer Protection Act.”
Craig & Bishop, Inc. v. Piles, 247 S.W.3d 897 (Ky. 2008).
“170 and KRS 367.220 — explicitly requires that a binding contract be reached for a purchaser damaged by unlawful trade practices to have a private right of action.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.220(5) — 13 cases
Arnold v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 392 F. Supp. 3d 747 (E.D. Ky. 2019).
“In response, Plaintiffs argue-without relevant supporting authority-that Kentucky statute provides that "a person bringing a claim for violation of the KCPA related to an insurance policy does so under [ Ky.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.220(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.