Mindy G. Barfield

Dinsmore obtained a successful result for a professional liability carrier in a federal case involving coverage and bad faith claims. A Kentucky dentist allegedly lied to his patient that he had installed dental implants for her, and after she began to experience increased pain and called the dentist, she learned he had abandoned his practice and moved out of state. After racking up massive dental bills from another provider, her lawyer phoned the dentist’s carrier, but only provided the carrier his client’s name and did not specify damages were being sought or provide any details about the loss. Days later the policy terminated. When that information was provided several months later, the insurer denied the request for coverage, contending that the dentist himself had not reported a “claim” or “potential claim” consistent with the policy terms, nor had the claimant done so consistent with the policy’s reporting requirements. Thereafter, the patient obtained a nearly $500,000 default judgment for negligence against the dentist, and then sued MedPro to cover that judgment as well as for bad faith. Ultimately, a Kentucky federal district judge entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer, ruling that strict compliance with a claims made policy’s reporting policy was required under Kentucky law and that neither a “claim” (a written request for damages during the policy period) or “potential claim” (reporting all “reasonably available information” about the loss during the policy period) had been provided. As a result, the insurer was deemed to have no contractual duty to pay (a required element under Kentucky law for any bad faith claim), a summary judgment on the bad faith claim was also entered. The district court’s orders were recently upheld in a unanimous decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Our firm represented a large national coal company in its claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation and tortious interference with contract involving multiple coal contracts and assignments of contract for coal for a power company's North Carolina generating station. A settlement was ultimately reached.

We represented Jewish Hospital when a former certified respiratory therapist, also performing echo cardiograms, alleged that her termination was retaliation for her reporting of a change in her work schedule that she alleged would cause her to perform services that jeopardized her state certification. Summary judgment was obtained on the wrongful discharge public policy claim and later upheld in the Kentucky Court of Appeals for our client. Following the ruling by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the plaintiff filed for discretionary review with the Kentucky Supreme Court, but was denied. Russell v. Jewish Hospital, 2004 Ky. App. Unpublished LEXIS 890 (Ky. App. 2004)

The plaintiff, a former insurance agent, claimed that the large national insurance company defamed him in order to divert business to a new agent. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.

Our firm represented Host Communications, Inc. in a declaratory judgment action as to whether Host was responsible to pay Sprint for certain telephone services supplied Host for various sites and facilities during the NCAA Tournament pursuant to the terms of Sprint's NCAA Corporate Partner Agreement, or whether the filed rate doctrine permitted Sprint to charge Host a rate higher than agreed upon by the parties. A favorable settlement was reached.

Our firm represented Jaguar in a claim alleging that the Commission was biased in favor of dealers and against manufacturers which prevented Jaguar from receiving a due process hearing before the Commission on its application to terminate the franchise of a Jaguar dealer. Jaguar prevailed, and this decision was affirmed on appeal in a published decision (Jaguar v. Cottrell, 1999 WL 34749489), with Jaguar also subsequently receiving an award of attorneys fees.

The plaintiff claimed she received negative performance reviews and was demoted because of her gender (as management at this national sports marketing company were male former athlestes) and as a result of a disability. She also claimed she was the subject of retaliation when she complained about this discrimination, including threats and physical assault from a supervisor. This case was settled on favorable terms to the client.

Our firm represented the Plaintiff in this lawsuit, a large national coal company, for bad faith breach of a long term requirements contract which resulted in significant reductions in the tonnages of coal purchased from our client. A favorable settlement was reached while the case was pending in arbitration.

The firm represented Defendant a large national insurance company before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The issue was whether dismissal of claims under the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act was proper where the insurer was not obligated to initiate settlement discussions and where the insurer did not attempt to settle for an unreasonable amount.  The case was dismissed and the summary judgment of the lower court was affirmed.

We advised the client with respect to all aspects of the case, which was originally filed in State Court in St. Louis, then dismissed and re-filed in the US Bankruptcy Court in NY following the client's Chapter 11 filing. The U.S. District Court withdrew the reference and assumed jurisdiction of the claims. We litigated these claims for a fraction of the cost that would have been incurred by New York counsel, and achieved a very favorable settlement for the client.  The settlement  was approved by the Bankruptcy Court without objection from any constituency in the bankruptcy. Following approval of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Court, all claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff lodged a complaint against his employer, a non-profit offering programs for the homeless, with the National Labor Relations board, claiming that its Executive Director made threats to employees to discourage them from organizing. He also filed a civil action claiming that he has been retaliated against in response to his NLRB complaint. Both matters were settled on favorable terms to the client.

The plaintiff claimed she was constructively discharged by the hospital for refusing to perform ecocardiographs which she claimed were intrusive procedures which would constitute a violation of her license as a respiratory therapist, and thus against Kentucky public policy. The client received a summary judgement from the trial court, which was upheld on appeal after oral argument.