In a recent decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled against expanding insurance coverage in a tragic case involving a drunk-driving accident that took five lives. The case stemmed from a 2019 crash on Interstate 75, where driver Joey Lee Bailey, reportedly overserved at two Georgetown bars, struck a vehicle carrying the Abbas family. All six people in both cars died.
The restaurants involved, including one called Roosters, had an insurance policy from Grange Insurance that covered up to $1 million for alcohol-related injuries and damage. While that basic coverage was not in question, the family’s estate sought additional money from a commercial umbrella policy carried by Roosters, hoping it would add to the payout.
A trial court initially sided with Roosters, saying the umbrella policy’s exclusion clause was unclear, allowing the extra coverage to apply. But the Kentucky Court of Appeals and later the state Supreme Court disagreed. They found the policy’s language about exclusions, specifically an endorsement called CU 47, was clear. That endorsement replaced earlier parts of the policy and barred coverage for liquor-related injuries caused by intoxicated patrons.
The justices emphasized that when a policy changes parts of its wording through endorsements, courts focus only on the current text. They rejected Roosters’ argument that some old exceptions from the original policy should still count. The court said the phrase “is replaced by” in the endorsement left no room for confusion or overlap.
This decision underlines the importance of clear wording in insurance contracts, especially in cases involving liquor liability. Every year, disagreements over vague policy language lead to many court appeals nationwide. But here, the Kentucky Supreme Court showed that straightforward wording can avoid those disputes.
The 2019 accident received national attention because the Abbas family was returning from a vacation at DisneyWorld when the crash happened. Funeral processions for the family were held in Dearborn, Michigan. The case highlights how tragic events, business liability, and insurance policies can collide in the courtroom long after the headlines fade.