The Kentucky Supreme Court issued an unpublished opinion December 18, 2025, addressing a complex insurance coverage dispute that has wound through Kentucky courts for nearly a decade. In *Allied World Specialty Insurance Company v. Hon. Thomas D. Wingate*, the court rendered a mixed decision, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case back to lower courts.
The dispute centers on Allied World's challenge to specific discovery orders issued by Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Wingate. Allied World had sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Wingate from enforcing the discovery orders in an underlying employment practices liability case involving Kentucky State University.
The insurance coverage dispute originated in 2016 when former Kentucky State University employee Sirrethia Fox filed a lawsuit on April 27, 2016. This lawsuit triggered coverage issues under an employment practices liability insurance policy that Allied World had issued to KSU in 2012. The policy was subsequently renewed to cover claims made and reported through July 1, 2015.
Allied World, formerly known as Darwin National Assurance Company, has been fighting the coverage obligations and related discovery requirements for several years. The case progressed from Franklin Circuit Court through the Kentucky Court of Appeals before reaching the state's highest court.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals had previously denied Allied World's petition for a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that asks a higher court to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or authority. Insurance companies sometimes seek such writs to challenge discovery orders they believe are overly broad or inappropriate.
In its December 18 decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court conducted what it described as "a thorough review of the record presented and the applicable law." The court's mixed ruling suggests that while Judge Wingate may have overstepped in some aspects of his discovery orders, other portions were properly within his authority.
The case represents the type of complex insurance coverage litigation that often arises in employment practices liability cases. When former employees sue their employers for discrimination, harassment, or other workplace violations, insurance companies must determine whether their policies cover the alleged conduct and resulting legal costs.
Employment practices liability insurance policies typically cover legal defense costs and settlements or judgments arising from employment-related claims. However, these policies contain numerous exclusions and conditions that can lead to coverage disputes between insurers and their policyholders.
The discovery phase of such cases often becomes contentious, as insurance companies seek to limit the information they must produce while universities and other policyholders argue they need broad access to insurer documents to prove coverage obligations.
Kentucky State University has been involved as both a real party in interest and an appellee in the proceedings. Universities face particular challenges in employment practices liability cases due to their size, diverse workforce, and public nature. They often rely heavily on insurance coverage to manage the costs of defending against employment-related claims.
The Franklin Circuit Court case that sparked this dispute, numbered 16-CI-00446, has been pending since 2016. The lengthy timeline reflects the complexity of insurance coverage litigation and the multiple layers of appeals that can arise when discovery disputes reach appellate courts.
The Kentucky Supreme Court's decision to issue an unpublished opinion means the ruling cannot be cited as binding precedent in future cases. However, under Kentucky rules, unpublished decisions rendered after January 1, 2003, may be cited for consideration by courts when no published opinion adequately addresses the legal issue at hand.
This limitation on the precedential value of the decision reflects the court's view that the ruling addresses case-specific discovery issues rather than broad principles of insurance law that would benefit from published precedent.
The partial reversal and remand means the case will return to lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. This could involve modified discovery orders or other adjustments to the litigation process.
For insurance practitioners, the case illustrates the ongoing challenges in employment practices liability coverage disputes. Insurance companies continue to face pressure to provide broad coverage while seeking to limit their exposure through policy terms and discovery limitations.
The remand ensures that this long-running dispute will continue in the Kentucky court system. The ultimate resolution may depend on how the lower courts interpret and implement the Kentucky Supreme Court's mixed ruling on the discovery issues.
As employment practices liability claims continue to evolve in response to changing workplace dynamics and legal standards, insurance coverage disputes like this one are likely to remain a significant area of litigation in Kentucky and nationwide.