| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
As some may know, TechnoEsq Presentations has been posting on-line videos of opening and closing arguments from trials involving significant verdicts from 2007, etc.
However, TechnoEsq (http://www.TechnoEsq.com) has now posted an oral argument from the Kentucky Supreme Court heard Aug. 15, 2008 in Coleman v. Bee Line Courier Services regarding PIP and indemnity. An outstanding resource is found here in trial videos (and now an occasional appellate argument video). I understand counsel can bring a tape and obtain a copy of their arguments at the SCOKY, and I would encourage each to do so (and hopefully share it with others by contacting me or TechnoEsq!) until these are eventually and hopefully archived at the AOC or the state's law schools.
The case was Coleman v. Bee-Line Courier Services in which the Kentucky Court of Appeals had held that a release and indemnification agreement settling a personal injury claim from a car accident against a self-insured employer and its employee which included the plaintiff indemnifying the defendant-employer for any medical expenses it paid was valid and enforceable in spite of the purpose of the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act. Although this holding at the COA was premised upon Bee-Line being self-insured, it became evident on appeal that this "fact" was not clearly developed at trial. It also was evident in the release and from the questions by the justices that the language of the release did not specifically state or use the terms PIP, personal injury protection benefits, reparation benefits, etc.
The lower court decision (COA) and the briefs filed at SCOKY are below.
Judge Thomas Wine authored the Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion which affirmed the trial court judge's order enforcing this indemnity agreement and requiring the claimant to repay the defendant self-insurer/insurer the PIP medicals (which would have meant giving back 88% of her settlement!). Justice Lisabeth Hughes-Abramson was the trial judge in the case and was thus recused from hearing the appeal at the Supreme Court.
Here is the TechnoEsq link: New Posting on TrialVideos Page.
In any event, the opportunity to observe appellate arguments is a great learning tool to watch how well prepared the lawyers and the justices are on these issues. The questions by the Court were to the point addressing the facts, the language of the release, legal arguments and cases, the No Fault Act, and policy considerations.
A most impressive presentation, and counsel and Court are both commended.
TechnoEsq's post:
We have a new posting at TechnoEsq’s TrialVideos a little different than normal. This post is the oral arguments for a very important case, Coleman v. Beeline Courier Service, Inc.
At issue is whether Ohio Casualty Inc. v. Ruschell, 834 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. 1992), requires an indemnification agreement between an accident victim and tort-feasor to contain an explicit designation of no-fault benefits in order for the indemnification to include such benefits.
This case was wonderfully argued by Kevin C. Burke and Grover S. Cox for the Movant and Jeremiah A. Byrne for the Respondent. Be sure to head on over and watch the arguments. We will post the opinion once it has been published.
With fewer and fewer trials occuring throughout the state, there are fewer and fewer opportunities for young lawyers to learn from the experience of others. Once upon a time carrying another's briefcase meant you got to at least watch the trial. Now it just means carrying a briefcase, and with a little luck attend mediation, a deposition, or a hearing.
The Internet allows you a mentor at your beck and call on your desktop. Trial videos of opening and closings of the more significant and noteworthy Kentucky cases are being developed and posted on the Internet for the benefit of others. Please check it out. Finis Price with www.TechnoEsq.com and Mike Stevens with www.KentuckyLawReview.com (a/k/a www.KentuckyLawBlog.com) have arranged to obtain the openings and closings of some significant jury trials from 2007.
This project was not insignificant in time, effort and energy to research and track down the cases, obtain the tapes and/or videos, and then convert (digitize) them to a format that could be accessed from your desktop.
Yes, I know this all "geek speak", but I am rather proud of this project and the efforts that Finis Price, Heather Price, and myself have put forth.
In addition, Kentucky Trial Court Review has permitted us to use their reports of the trials to give more detail and background to make the videos much more useful. If you try cases in Kentucky, then you know that their trial summaries and yearly reviews and analysis of Kentucky jury verdicts are essential to your practice.
The trial videos can be found at http://technoesq.com/trialvideos/.
Here's the announcement at TechnoEsq.com:
As promised, TechnoEsq and Kentucky Law Review have published TechnoEsq Trial Videos as a repository for trial videos of substantial court proceedings. These videos are provided for educational purposes and free of charge to view or download.
We’re also happy to announce that Kentucky Trial Court Review is making available the case synopsis for trial videos displayed on TechnoEsq Trial Videos. Kentucky Trial Court Review provides wonderful insight into the proceedings for every civil jury trial in Kentucky and we are grateful for their contribution. If you do not already subscribe to the KTCR, you’re missing out. Be sure to subscribe to their monthly publication.
Click here for all the trial videos.
Here are links to the most recent posts:
