State Farm Ins. Co. v. Honorable Brian C. Edwards,
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Kentucky Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Kentucky Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant appealed from an order denying its petition for a writ of prohibition where appellant sought to prohibit appellee, a Jefferson Circuit Court judge, from referring its default judgment motion to the circuit court Master Commissioner for certain factual determinations. At issue was whether appellants were entitled to a writ where appellants alleged that the Jefferson Circuit Court's routine practice of referring default judgments to the commissioner did not comport with the role of commissioners as contemplated by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure and that the Jefferson Circuit Court's alleged practice was unique among Kentucky's circuit courts and was at odds with the equal protection guarantees of both the Kentucky and United States Constitutions. The court held that appellant was not entitled to a writ prohibiting the reference to the commissioner because appellant could obtain ordinary appellate review of its objection.
Download PDF
RENDERED : MAY 19, 2011
TO BE PUBLISHED
Sixyrrmr CT
,vixrf of ~rufurkV
2010-SC-000521-MR
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY
APPELLANT
ON APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE BRIAN C . EDWARDS, JUDGE
NO. 10-CI-000442
V.
HONORABLE BRIAN C . EDWARDS
JUDGE, JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLEE
AND
MARK RODEN
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE ABRAMSON
AFFIRMING
State Farm Insurance Company appeals from an Order of the Court of
Appeals denying its petition for a writ of prohibition . State Farm seeks to
prohibit Judge Brian Edwards of the Jefferson Circuit Court from referring
State Farm's default judgment motion to the circuit court Master
Commissioner for certain factual determinations . State Farm maintains that
the trial court could make the determinations itself in the first instance and
spare State Farm the $50 .00 fee for the commissioner's report. Since State
Farm is frequently before the circuit court seeking default judgments, and
since, according to State Farm, the Jefferson Circuit Court judges routinely
refer such judgments to the commissioner, State Farm's concern may not be
quite as de minimis as might first appear. State Farm contends that the
Jefferson Circuit Court's routine practice of referring default judgments to the
commissioner' does not comport with the role of commissioners as
contemplated by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure, and, further, that the
Jefferson Circuit Court's alleged practice is unique among Kentucky's circuit
courts and is therefore at odds with the equal protection guarantees of both the
Kentucky and the United States Constitutions . Because State Farm has an
adequate opportunity to assert these contentions by way of ordinary appeal,
the Court of Appeals correctly denied extraordinary relief, and we therefore
affirm its Order.
RELEVANT FACTS
Giving -rise to this appeal was an automobile accident involving Roger
Fisher, a State Farm insured, and Mark Roden, the real party in interest . State
Farm paid Fisher's insurance claim and then, as Fisher's subrogee, brought
suit against Roden. Roden failed to respond, and on March 2, 2010, State
Farm filed its motion for default judgment . Judge Edwards thereupon referred
the matter to the Master Commissioner, instructing the commissioner to
"examine the complaint and any exhibits tendered with the motion for
judgment," and to "determin[e] whether the amounts) set forth in the judgment
is/are authorized by the tendered exhibits ." In a motion accusing Judge
1
There is nothing in the record beyond the representation of State Farm's counsel
with regard to the "routine" nature of the referrals . Consequently, the only referral
factually before the Court is the one made by Judge Edwards in this case .
Edwards of shirking his judicial responsibilities and illegally delegating his
authority to the commissioner, State Farm moved the court to remand its
commissioner reference . As support for its motion, State Farm cited Campbell
v. Campbell, 2010 WL 391841, Ky . App . (Feb. S, 2010) (Disc . Review Granted
June 9, 2010), in which the Court of Appeals held that by ordering the parties
to participate in binding arbitration a family court judge had improperly
delegated his authority to the arbitrator . Noting that the court in this matter
had not delegated any authority to make findings to the commissioner, but
would itself make findings in light of the commissioner's report and any
objections to that report asserted by the parties, Judge Edwards denied State
Farm's motion.
Again relying on Campbell and adding a contention that the reference to
the commissioner was not authorized by the Civil Rules, State Farm then
petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ prohibiting the trial court's
commissioner reference . As noted, that Court denied the petition and in its
brief order observed that Campbell is not final-this Court having accepted
discretionary review-and further observed that State Farm had failed to show
that it met the exacting standard for extraordinary relief .
Appealing now to us, State Farm reiterates its contentions that the
reference to the commissioner is not authorized by the Civil Rules and
amounts to an illegal delegation of the trial court's responsibilities, 2 and
? Although we do not reach the merits of State Farm's contentions, for, as explained
below, State Farm will have an adequate opportunity by appeal, we note that its
citation of the non-final Campbell case is improper. While CR 76 .28(4)(c) now
contends for the 'first time that the Jefferson Circuit Court's alleged policy of
referring motions for default judgment to the Master Commissioner denies the
parties seeking those judgments the equal protection of the law. State Farm
also attempts to rectify its failure before the Court of Appeals to bring its
petition within our precedents delineating the high standard that must be met
to justify the extraordinary relief of a writ . As usual, it is with those standards
that our analysis begins .
ANALYSIS
In Cox v. Braden, 266 S .W.3d 792 (Ky. 2008), we emphasized that to
prevent the disruption of trial court proceedings and the waste of appellate
court resources occasioned by interlocutory appeals, extraordinary relief in the
form of writs compelling or prohibiting some act by the trial court is limited to
two narrow circumstances . Such relief may be granted, we reiterated, only
"upon a showing that (1) the lower court is proceeding
or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and
there is no remedy through an application to an
intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting
or is about to act erroneously, although within its
jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by
appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable
injury will result if the petition is not granted ."
Id. at 796 (quoting from Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S .W .3d 1, 10 (Ky. 2004)) .
The "jurisdiction" referred to in the first type of case is the trial court's
subject matter jurisdiction, i .e ., its authority to address the matter or the
permits the citation of unpublished appellate opinions rendered after January 1,
2003, the rule does not extend to opinions that are not final, for clearly there can be
no precedential value to a holding that is still being considered . Alexander v.
Commonwealth, 220 S .W .3d 704 (Ky. App. 2007) .
question before it . Goldstein v. Feeley, 299 S .W .3d 549 (Ky. 2009) . State Farm
asserts, without discussion, that the trial court here is proceeding outside its
jurisdiction, but clearly the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
underlying tort case and is authorized, generally, to consider references to the
Master Commissioner . There is no question that the trial court is acting within
its jurisdiction .
State Farm's real contention, rather, is that the trial court has
misconstrued the rules governing use of the commissioner and is proceeding
erroneously . This is the second type of writ case, and to prevail in that type of
case State Farm must show not only that the trial court has erred or is about
to err, but that the error is not subject to remedy by appeal and will result,
absent the writ, in great injustice or irreparable injury.
By itself, the $50 .00 fee at stake here would not satisfy the "great
injustice and irreparable injury" requirement, but we have held that where a
systemic error is shown, correction of which "`is necessary and appropriate in
the interest of orderly judicial administration,"' a writ may issue
notwithstanding the petitioner's relatively minor personal interest .
Commonwealth, Dept. of Corrections v. Engle, 302 S.W.3d 60, 65 (Ky . 2010)
(quoting from Bender v. Eaton, 343 S .W. 2d 799, 801 (Ky. 1961)) . Here, State
Farm asserts that Jefferson Circuit Court judges routinely refer default
judgment motions to the commissioner, this case being just one of many, and
it maintains that all such routine referrals violate the Civil Rules . It is doubtful
whether State Farm has adequately raised a systemic error, for the only
"evidence" it has referred to of the Jefferson Circuit Court's alleged policy or
practice is its own "say so ." Nevertheless, even assuming (a rather large
assumption) that State Farm can clear the "great injustice and irreparable
injury" hurdle, it is still not entitled to extraordinary relief unless relief by way
of ordinary appeal is unavailable or inadequate . Cline v. Weddle, 250 S .W .3d
330, 335 (Ky. 2008) (In the second type of writ case, "a showing of no adequate
remedy by appeal is an absolute prerequisite to obtaining a writ for
extraordinary relief' (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)) . State
Farm, however, has an adequate remedy by appeal.
To see why, we consider State Farm's claim . State Farm maintains that
the reference to the commissioner in this and other Jefferson Circuit Court
default judgment cases somehow violates , the Civil Rules, breaches the equal
protection guarantee, and imposes upon State Farm a commissioner's fee it
ought not to have had to pay. 3 If ultimately State Farm's tort claim against Mr.
Roden fails, then its alleged grounds for asserting that the trial court erred in
3 It makes this contention notwithstanding CR 55 .01, which, providing for default
judgments, states that
[i]f, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to
carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to
determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth
of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of
any other matter, the court, without a jury, shall conduct
such hearings or order such references as it deems
necessary and proper. (emphasis added) .
We note that under the plain language of CR 55 .01 the trial judge should exercise
discretion and refer default judgment motions in those instances where it is
"necessary and proper ." A blanket or routine policy of referring all motions for
default judgment to the commissioner is not appropriate under our Civil Rules.
making the commissioner reference and imposing the consequent fee can be
raised on appeal in the normal course, along with any other assignments of
error. Should State Farm prevail in the underlying case, it still would not be
precluded from seeking the return of the fee, for with the final judgment the
denial of State Farm's motion to remand the commissioner reference will have
become a final, adverse ruling divesting State Farm of the fee, and from that
ruling an appeal would lie. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation v. The
Home Indemnity Company, 452 S .W.2d 620 (Ky. 1970) (noting that a final
judgment incorporates and renders final as of its date all the preceding
interlocutory rulings) ; Murty Bros. Sales, Inc. v. Preston, 716 S .W.2d 239 (Ky .
1986) (noting that an order is final and appealable if it divests a party of a right
in such a manner as to put it out of the power of the court making the order to
replace the party in its original condition) . Having an adequate remedy by
appeal, State Farm is not entitled to extraordinary relief.
CONCLUSION
In sum, because State Farm may obtain ordinary appellate review of its
objection to the use of the Master Commissioner in this default judgment case,
it is not entitled to a writ prohibiting the reference to the commissioner . We
affirm, accordingly, the July 15, 2010 Order of the Court of Appeals denying
that relief.
Minton, C.J. ; Cunningham, Noble, Schroder, and Scott, JJ ., concur.
Venters, J ., dissents by separate opinion .
VENTERS, J ., DISSENTING : CR 53 .02 and CR 55 .01 authorize a circuit
judge to refer certain matters to a commissioner . Other than postjudgment
matters pertaining to a judicial sale or postjudgment matters pertaining to the
assets of a judgment debtor, CR 53 .02(2) expressly allows such a referral only
in "special cases," when the issues are complex or determining damages is
difficult . CR 55.01 allows such referrals for default judgments when "it is
necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to
establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of
any other matter."
State Farm's underlying lawsuit is a simple insurance subrogation case,
arising from an automobile collision . The damages are liquidated . State Farm
either paid them under its policy, or it did not . The failure of the defendant to
contest the claim stands as his admission of liability . This case does not
present the kind of complexities that this Court had in mind when CR 53 .02
and CR 55 .01 were adopted . The referral of State Farm's motion to a
commissioner was clearly an abuse of discretion, with or without the $50 .00
fee .
A one-time judicial error and a single $50 .00 fee improperly assessed is a
minimal claim and I would not disagree with a decision to overlook it. But
State Farm alleges, and no one denies, that referrals in similar cases are a
recurring practice with a charge of $50 .00 each time. The order entered to
refer this case to the commissioner is a generic preprinted form, with the style
of the case written in by hand, suggesting some level repetitive use without
case-specific findings to indicate the grounds for such referrals . We would
closely scrutinize any erroneous court practice that imposed a $5,000 .00 fee. I
respectfully suggest that we should look just as closely upon a practice that
charges a $50 .00 fee a hundred times, or a thousand times.
The majority affirmed the Court of Appeals' conclusion to deny the writ
because State Farm has the remedy of appeal . Technically, I agree . State
Farm can appeal ; however, the vast majority of default judgment motions turn
out favorably to the plaintiff, so we may fairly assume that State Farm will
eventually obtain judgment and then take the awkward step of appealing from
a judgment in its own favor, with the fees and costs associated therewith .
Notwithstanding the adequacy of an appellate remedy, I believe the Court
of Appeals should have granted the writ under the kind of "certain special case"
exception, as noted in Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. Chauvin, 316
S .W.3d 279, 283 (Ky. 2010) . State Farms' allegations indicate a common
practice that I believe violates our civil rules, and yet evades appellate review
because of its de minimis effect in individual cases . I further believe the
collective effect and pecuniary nature of the error casts a narrow, but negative
shadow on the Court of Justice. I would reverse the Court of Appeals, or
alternatively, issue a writ pursuant to § 110 of the Kentucky Constitution in
exercise of our administrative responsibility over the Court of Justice, and
therefore, I dissent.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Franklin S . Yudkin
100 N . Sixth Street, 5th Floor
Louisville, KY 40202
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Jack Conway
Attorney General
Lisa Kathleen Lang
Assistant Attorney General
700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 118
Frankfort, KY 40601
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST:
Mark Roden
4149 Craig Avenue
Louisville, KY 40215
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
