The case was decided in 2013 where the Court of Appeal Vacated an earlier decision by the Appeal court in Kentucky that had allowed Andrew and the LLC to claim for the damages made and the loss of business. The Supreme Court's argument was that in a limited Liability company, the only entity that can claim for the damages made in the case of the truck was the LLC itself and it was hard to understand if the Andrew was the business by himself. The issue of discovery was one of the major drawing points in the case. The case provides a good analysis on how an LLC can claim for damages in regards to issues about loss of business and damage to property.
Nature of Case
The case involves the Tort law, as it was a civil legal liability. Andrew, in this case, wanted Turner and M &W Milling Company to pay him for the damages to his truck and the loss of business because of the losses made by the company. The interpretation was that Andrew and his LLC Company could not conduct their activities and lost money as the customers could not receive the services as usual ( Rutledge, 2011) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Facts of Case
The accident happened on April 2007 when a Coy Turner was driving a feed truck owned by M&W Milling Company. The movable auger that was mounted on the vehicle swung and damaged an oncoming truck that was operated and owned by Billy Andrew. The truck was owned by Billy Andrew, Jr. Trucking LLC that was owned by Andrew. The company had been formed fifteen months before the accident. The lawsuit filed by Andrew was in January 2008 to the claim of personal property damage as well as the loss of income derived from the use the vehicle. However, it is important to note that the business was not named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit ( Rutledge, 2015) . M &W filed interrogatories and requests for the production of information from Andrew in regards to the claim. Andrew did not comply despite the trial court ordering Andrew to comply. For this reason, the trial court cut the damages claim at $ 22, 800.41 that was to be litigated by M &W as Andrew failed to comply. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court case and granted Andrew permission to claim for damages as the sole owner of the business using his name. This decision was vacated by the Court of Appeal that stated that the business is the only one that could claim for the loss of income and not the individual in this case ( Rutledge, 2008) .
Held or Analysis
The Court of Appeal argued that an LLC is a legal entity that is different from its members. It used the Kentucky registration arguing that a member of an LLC shall not be considered as a proper party to the proceedings by or against the LLC because of him or her being a member of the liability company ( Rutledge, 2014) . This meant that the two should be held separately. For this reason, Andrew, and the LLC had to be taken as separate entities, and only the LLC could claim for the damages of loss of income. The finding of the court was that Andrew created the LLC and it conducted trucking business at issue and by law, it only the LLC could claim for damages. The case was therefore taken back to the trial court to readdress the discovery sanctions.
Conclusion
This case provides a good analysis of how claims of damage of property and loss of income are handled especially if the plaintiff is the sole owner of the business as the case of Andrew. It is evident that the name of the plaintiff and the LLC cannot be used interchangeably in the court of law in Kentucky, as the LLC is a legal entity by itself.
References
Rutledge, T. E. (2008). The 2007 Amendments to the Kentucky Business Entity Statutes. Kentucky Law Journal , 97 (2).
Rutledge, T. E. (2011). 2010 Amendments to Kentucky's Business Entity Laws, The. N. Ky. L. Rev. , 38 , 383.
Rutledge, T. E. (2014). Limited Liability Companies in Kentucky. Available at SSRN 2129208 .
Rutledge, T. E. (2015). When a Single-Member LLC Isn't and When a Multiple-Member LLC is. Journal of Passthrough Entities, July-August .
