. “[T]he obligations arising out of a contract are due only to those with whom it is made[.]” Phoenix Am. Adm'rs, LLC v. Lee, 670 S.W.3d 832, 838 (Ky. 2023). Further, “[w]here the contract's language is clear and unambiguous, the agreement is to be given effect according to its terms, and a court will interpret the contract's terms by assigning language its ordinary meaning and without resort to extrinsic evidence.”
Wilcoxson is a party to the Policy, and he allegedly suffered an injury when Principal rescinded the Policy. See Phx. Am. Adm'rs, LLC v. Lee, 670 S.W.3d 832, 838 (Ky. 2023) (“[W]henever a wrong is founded upon a breach of contract, the plaintiff suing in respect thereof must be a party or privy to the contract ....” (quoting Presnell Constr. Managers, Inc. v. EH Constr., LLC, 134 S.W.3d 575, 579 (Ky. 2004))).
Mr. Raymond could not prevail on his Magnuson-Moss implied warranty claim under Kentucky law because it requires the parties to an implied warranty be in privity of contract. Privity is the relationship between parties to a contract that allows them to enforce the contract's promises and prevents a third party from doing so, subject to limited exceptions. Phoenix Am. Administrators, LLC v. Lee, --- S.W.3d ---, No. 2022-SC-0133-DG, 2023 WL 4037404, at *4 (Ky. June 15, 2023). If the liability is based on the sale of a product, liability cannot extend beyond the buyer-seller relationship unless the U.C.C. or some other exception extends it.
Phoenix American Administrators, LLC v. Lee, 670 S.W.3d 832, 838 (Ky. 2023) (citation omitted). Because interpretation of the terms of a contract involves only questions of law, we review de novo.
The standard of review on appeal when the lower court has granted a motion for summary judgment is whether the record, when viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows no genuine issue of material fact so that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Phoenix Am. Adm'rs, LLC v. Lee, 670 S.W.3d 832, 838 (Ky. 2023) (citation omitted). As this is a legal question involving no factual findings, we review the grant of summary judgment de novo.
, 670 S.W.3d 832, 840 (Ky. 2023) ("Because a factual dispute existed as to when Lee first notified Phoenix that his Kia was totaled, the [Court of Appeals] held that summary judgment was improper.
, we generally review the grant of summary judgment without deference to either the trial court's assessment of the record or its legal conclusions. Phoenix American Administrators, LLC v. Lee, 670 S.W.3d 832, 838 (Ky. 2023) (citation omitted).
Phoenix Am. Adm'rs, LLC v. Lee, 670 S.W.3d 832, 838 (Ky. 2023) (citations omitted).
It is undisputed that State Farm relied on the police report, later shown to be inaccurate, in making its initial assessment of liability. Insurers commonly rely on police reports as evidence regarding the circumstances of an incident giving rise to a claim; see, e.g., Phoenix American Administrators, LLC v. Lee, 670 S.W.3d 832, 836 (Ky. 2023); Gibson v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 328 S.W.3d 195, 198 (Ky. App. 2010). In Breedlove’s deposition, he admitted that the incorrect police report made him look like he was responsible for the collision.
Because summary judgment does not require findings of fact but only an examination of the record to determine whether material issues of fact exist, we generally review the grant of summary judgment without deference to either the trial court’s assessment of the record or its legal conclusions. Phoenix American Adm’rs, LLC v. Lee, 670 S.W.3d 832 (Ky. 2023) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).