Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.188 (2026)

Notification of parties holding subrogation rights -- Collateral source

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

payments and subrogation rights admissible. (1) This section shall apply to all actions for damages, whether in contract or tort, commenced after July 15, 1988. (2) At the commencement of an action seeking to recover damages, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff or his attorney to notify, by certified mail, those parties believed by him to hold subrogation rights to any award received by the plaintiff as a result of the action. The notification shall state that a failure to assert subrogation rights by intervention, pursuant to Kentucky Civil Rule 24, will result in a loss of those rights with respect to any final award received by the plaintiff as a result of the action. (3) Collateral source payments, except life insurance, the value of any premiums paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff for same, and known subrogation rights shall be an admissible fact in any civil trial. (4) A certified list of the parties notified pursuant to subsection (2) of this section shall also be filed with the clerk of the court at the commencement of the action. Effective: July 15, 1988 History: Created 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 224, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1988.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ruschell, 834 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ruschell, 834 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. 1992). · cites it 19× “Ruschell failed to provide notice by "certified mail" to her no-fault carrier when she filed suit on the tort claim, as now provided for in KRS 411.188, her no-fault carrier was released from any further liability.”

O'BRYAN v. Hedgespeth, 892 S.W.2d 571 (Ky. 1995). · cites it 11× “At issue is the constitutionality of KRS 411.188, a statute enacted in 1988 legislating the practice and procedure to apply to all civil actions wherein the plaintiff has received “collateral source payments” related to the same expenses for which he seeks damages in a civil…”

Krahwinkel v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corp., 183 S.W.3d 154 (Ky. 2006). · cites it 16× “1994), we specifically rejected such an interpretation of KRS 411.188: Had this case not been settled forthwith under terms excluding the amounts paid by Zurich, dismissing Zurich's subrogation claim would have resulted, quite possibly, in a windfall verdict for the plaintiff,…”

Edwards v. Land, 851 S.W.2d 484 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 31× “This is an appeal from a Boyle Circuit Court order finding House Bill 551 of the 1988 General Assembly — and consequently KRS 411.188 — unconstitutional. Because we believe the trial judge erred as a matter of law in reaching this determination, we reverse.”

Burns v. Level, 957 S.W.2d 218 (Ky. 1998). · cites it 8× “The court pointed out that although such evidence was proper pursuant *220 to KRS 411.188, which provided for the admissibility of collateral source evidence, this statute was subsequently .”

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Haile, 882 S.W.2d 681 (Ky. 1994). · cites it 10× “This case requires us to construe the proper application of KRS 411.188, a statute relating to treatment of collateral source payments, 1 enacted in 1988 as part of House Bill 551, an omnibus package of so-called “tort reform” legislation.”

Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Winsett, 153 S.W.3d 862 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “First, it maintains *864 that the court, although not expressly setting it forth in its order, relied on KRS 411.188(2) to bar its claim. Second, GEI-CO contends that the filing of the complaint by its insured tolled the Statute of Limitations applicable to its claims.”

Schwartz v. Hasty, 175 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “In 1988 the legislature in Kentucky enacted KRS 411.188 as part of the omnibus tort reform legislation.”

Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002). “The notice of civil action shall conform in all re *386 spects to the requirements of KRS 411.188(2). (Emphasis added). Despite Cantrell’s assertion, the language and intent of paragraph 2 of the settlement agreement is not clear and unambiguous.”

Health Cost Controls v. Wardlow, 825 F. Supp. 152 (W.D. Ky. 1993). · cites it 7× “) Although the Kentucky courts have not expressly insisted on strict compliance with KRS 411.188, the Kentucky Supreme Court has suggested that a subrogation-claimant may deserve protection from that statute in the event a plaintiff, fails to provide formal notice of a tort…”

Saxe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 955 S.W.2d 188 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 7× “Counsel for Saxe sent a written subrogation notice to State Farm pursuant to KRS 411.188. Saxe thereafter filed an amended complaint joining State Farm as a defendant in order to assert a claim for the underinsured motorist protection provided in his policy of insurance.”

Lagerstrom v. Myrtle Werth Hosp.-Mayo Health Sys., 2005 WI 124 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 2× “[44] The Wisconsin statute does not explain how the subrogee's rights are to be protected. In contrast, the Kentucky statute provides that a plaintiff must notify subrogees that their failure to assert subrogation rights by intervention in that lawsuit will result in loss of…”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.188(1) — 1 case

Lampton v. Boley, 870 S.W.2d 428 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.188(2) — 17 cases

Krahwinkel v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corp., 183 S.W.3d 154 (Ky. 2006). “1994), we specifically rejected such an interpretation of KRS 411.188: Had this case not been settled forthwith under terms excluding the amounts paid by Zurich, dismissing Zurich's subrogation claim would have resulted, quite possibly, in a windfall verdict for the plaintiff,…”

Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Winsett, 153 S.W.3d 862 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004). “First, it maintains *864 that the court, although not expressly setting it forth in its order, relied on KRS 411.188(2) to bar its claim. Second, GEI-CO contends that the filing of the complaint by its insured tolled the Statute of Limitations applicable to its claims.”

Health Cost Controls v. Wardlow, 825 F. Supp. 152 (W.D. Ky. 1993). “) Although the Kentucky courts have not expressly insisted on strict compliance with KRS 411.188, the Kentucky Supreme Court has suggested that a subrogation-claimant may deserve protection from that statute in the event a plaintiff, fails to provide formal notice of a tort…”

Edwards v. Land, 851 S.W.2d 484 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992). “This is an appeal from a Boyle Circuit Court order finding House Bill 551 of the 1988 General Assembly — and consequently KRS 411.188 — unconstitutional. Because we believe the trial judge erred as a matter of law in reaching this determination, we reverse.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.188(3) — 11 cases

O'BRYAN v. Hedgespeth, 892 S.W.2d 571 (Ky. 1995). “At issue is the constitutionality of KRS 411.188, a statute enacted in 1988 legislating the practice and procedure to apply to all civil actions wherein the plaintiff has received “collateral source payments” related to the same expenses for which he seeks damages in a civil…”

Schwartz v. Hasty, 175 S.W.3d 621 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005). “In 1988 the legislature in Kentucky enacted KRS 411.188 as part of the omnibus tort reform legislation.”

Birkenshaw v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co., 889 S.W.2d 804 (Ky. 1994).

Mason v. Keltner, 854 S.W.2d 780 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.188(4) — 1 case

Lampton v. Boley, 870 S.W.2d 428 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993).

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.188(8) — 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.