BROADCASTS.com

b'

A Lawyer Should Never Sue an Insurer When There is Obviously no Coverage  

This case involves an insurance dispute in which Appellant, Benjamin G.  Dusing (Dusing), alleges that a 2016 leased Mercedes was properly  insured by Appellee, Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance  Company (Metropolitan). Metropolitan disclaims coverage for the vehicle,  which was destroyed by fire on June 25, 2016.  In Benjamin G. Dusing v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance  Company, No. 2021-CA-0200-MR, Court of Appeals of Kentucky (August 26,  2022) Dusing claimed he was driving the vehicle at the time it caught  fire. 

As a of Metropolitan\\u2019s refusal to pay Dusing sued for declaratory  judgment in Kenton Circuit Court on June 21, 2017. The court  subsequently granted what is styled as Metropolitan\'s "Motion for  Judgment," on the basis that there was no coverage pursuant to the terms  of insurance policy with Metropolitan (hereafter, the Policy).   in granting a judgment in favor of Metropolitan, the circuit court  reasoned as follows: "On March 31, 2016, BGD Law, a law firm owned by  [Dusing] leased the 2016 Mercedes for a period of five years or 60,000  miles. That lease also provided a 24-month service agreement. The lease  also charged BGD Law fees for license and registration of the vehicle."  Dusing asserted  that he is entitled to coverage for the loss of the  2016 Mercedes, claiming that that vehicle was a "non-owned" vehicle  under the policy. In response Metropolitan takes the position that the  2016 Mercedes could not qualify as a "non-owned" vehicle for several  reasons.