Kentucky Court Rules Firefighters Were “Using” Fire Truck When It Rolled Away, Affirming Coverage and Dismissing Subrogation Suit

The Kentucky Court of Appeals has affirmed in part and reversed in part a ruling involving a subrogation action brought by the Kentucky Association of Counties All Lines Fund (KALF) against the City of Somerset and several members of its fire department. The case stemmed from an accident involving a runaway fire truck.

The case arose from an August 2020 incident in which a 2012 pumper truck, owned by Pulaski County but assigned to the Somerset Fire Department (SFD), rolled off the fire station ramp and crashed into a nearby commercial building. As explained in the decision:

• On August 21, 2020, the date of the subject accident, SFD possessed and garaged the Firetruck in its Fire Station Two.
• [Lieutenant Bryan] West contacted the County’s Fleet Manager, Frank Hansford, regarding problems with the Firetruck’s power steering.
• Suspecting a leak of power steering fluid, West advised Hansford that he would check the power steering reservoir.
• West, along with [Captain Samuel] Hudson and [FF Travis] Wesley, commenced inspection of the reservoir.
• In doing so, Hudson partially removed the Firetruck from the bay and lifted the cab.
• The Firetruck’s parking brake became disengaged once the cab was lifted.
• The parties have reached the factual consensus that a piece of equipment likely fell on the brake switch, thereby releasing the parking brake.
• As a result, the unmanned Firetruck rolled down the fire station driveway and crashed into a commercial building.
• Fortunately, no physical injuries resulted.
• However, the building’s owner, Eagle Creek Properties, L.L.C., and the building’s tenant, Brighter Futures Therapy Center, L.L.C., suffered property damage.
• The Firetruck was also severely damaged, resulting in a total loss.

The fire truck was insured by KALF under a policy issued to Pulaski County. After the accident, KALF paid over $350,000 to cover the damage to the truck and the affected building. It then filed suit against the City of Somerset and several SFD members, asserting negligence and seeking recovery through subrogation.

The core issue in the case was whether Somerset and its firefighters were “insureds” under the KALF policy. The policy extended liability coverage to anyone “using” a covered vehicle with the permission of the named insured. KALF argued that inspecting or servicing the vehicle did not qualify as “using” it.

The trial court disagreed and found that the firefighters’ maintenance activities constituted “use” under the policy. It dismissed KALF’s complaint and denied Somerset’s request for attorneys’ fees. Both parties appealed.

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s conclusion that the Somerset firefighters were “using” the truck at the time of the incident. The Court noted that while the term “using” was not defined in the policy, Kentucky law requires ambiguous insurance terms to be construed in favor of coverage.

The Court rejected KALF’s attempt to incorporate a narrower definition of “use” derived from the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA), which excludes on-premises maintenance. The Court distinguished no-fault insurance from liability coverage and emphasized that the MVRA’s language had no bearing on interpreting a liability policy.

Instead, relying on ordinary dictionary definitions and the intent of the interlocal agreement between the County and the City, the Court found that the firefighters were indeed using the vehicle. Therefore, they—and by extension the City of Somerset—qualified as insureds.

Since an insurer cannot seek subrogation against its own insured, the Court affirmed the dismissal of KALF’s claim.

However, the Court reversed the trial court on the issue of attorneys’ fees. Noting that KALF refused to defend Somerset under a reservation of rights and instead pursued direct litigation, the Court held that KALF was obligated to reimburse Somerset for its defense costs. The case was remanded for a determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Here is a copy of the decision.

For those regular readers who might recognize the facts of this case from one we covered earlier… it is not. That case – while eerily similar, occurred in New Jersey.