Stone v. Montgomery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Gussler v. Damron, Ky.App., 599 S.W.2d 775, 778 (1980), this Court held that: ... a motorist, as here, whose personal injury damages exceed the thresholds of KRS 304.39-060 and who has failed to reject the tort limitations of the Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA) or to obtain security in compliance with the requirements of the Act, may bring an action in tort to recover for damages over and above the BRB (basic reparations benefits) payable to an insured motorist. (Emphasis theirs.) The appellant argues that this holding precludes an uninsured motorist from bringing an action against an insured motorist for medical expenses which would otherwise have been covered and paid by insurance. The research of recent Kentucky cases indicates that the appellant’s reasoning is correct. [[Image here]] In short, while an uninsured motorist may sue in tort for noneconomic damages once the medical expense threshold is met, no part of those damages defined as BRB (KRS 301.39-020(2)) may be recovered from a secured person except to the extent they exceed $10,000.00, the minimum personal injury protection (PIP) required under the Act. The appellee stresses that the “over and above” language in Fann [v. McGuffey, Ky., 534 S.W.2d 770 (1975) ] and Gussler, supra, is meant only to prevent the possibility of a double recovery. Although the language is definitely susceptible to that limited interpretation, we believe it more logically reflects the abolition of tort liability for BRB damages wh”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shelter Insurance Co. v. Humana Health Plans, Inc.

2. ““We conclude that the MVRA plainly abolishes a motorist’s liability to the extent that BRB benefits (sic) are payable for injuries another motorist may incur.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bohl v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

3. “to the extent the basic reparation benefits * * * are payable therefor * * * under any insurance policy or other method of security”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rehnelt v. Stuebe