John W. Walters

Partner, Managing Member since 2005, Founding Member since 1999
Partner, Managing Member since 2005, Founding Member since 1999

Phone: 859-219-9090
Fax: 859-219-9292
Email: E-mail Me

Mr. Walters handles all aspects of litigation with a strong focus on insurance defense, including agribusiness, class action, personal injury, construction law, bad faith, products liability, employment law and coverage disputes.

Professional Experience
Managing Member, Walters Meadows Richardson, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky March 2015 - present
Managing Member, Golden & Walters, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky June 1999 - February 2015

Education
University of Kentucky, College of Law Lexington, Kentucky Juris Doctor, Magna Cum Laude, May 1995
University of Kentucky, Graduate School of Business Masters of Business Administration, May 1995
Transylvania University Bachelor of Arts in Business Management, cum laude, May 1990

Mediation Training
Completed 40-hour training course given by Administrative Office of the Courts Education

Accomplishments and Honors
Certified as a Civil Trial Specialist by the National Board of Legal Specialty Certification
Martindale-Hubbell AV Peer Review Rated
Recipient of 3 Golden Gavels for Outstanding Trial Advocacy from Westfield Insurance Company
Named as a Superlawyer for the State of Kentucky

Bar Admissions
United States Supreme Court
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Commonwealth of Kentucky

Affliations
Member of Trucking Industry Defense Association
Member of Defense Research Institute
Member of Claims Litigation Management

Representative Matters

September, 2017 Woodford, KY.  Barr v. Woodford Excavation.  Mr. Walters represented Shane Trent and Woodford Excavation and Transport against claims of negligence stemming from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on Halloween night, 2013. It was undisputed the Plaintiff pulled into the path of Mr. Trent, but the Plaintiff claimed he should have been driving in a more cautious manner as it was raining at the time of the accident. Two of the occupants of the vehicle struck by Mr. Trent were killed on impact, and the third was severely injured.  Claims against Woodford Excavation and Transport were dismissed via summary judgment. The case preceded to trial against the driver of the vehicle. If successful, the Plaintiff sought $3,429,376 in lost earnings capacity as testified to by vocational economist Dr. William Baldwin. They also sought $10,144.50 in funeral expenses. After approximately 1 hour of deliberations, the jury returned a defense verdict on liability. Barr v. Trent 14-CI-00304 The Voice

June 2016, Clark County, KY:  Harkness v. Nationwide Agribusiness  Mr.Walters represented an insurance agency that secured insurance coverage on a winery and tasting room in Clark County Kentucky.  Coverage was bound 2-27-13.  When a bill for the policy was sent to the owners of the winery, the owners decided the policy was too expensive and refused to pay the premium.  The policy was canceled for non-payment of the premium.  No premium was ever collected on the policy, and insurer initiated efforts to collect a premium for the coverage that was in place for two months.  In response, the winery owners claimed they never authorized the policy to be issued and insisted on retroactive cancelation of the policy.  The insurer agreed to cancel the policy retroactively after receiving a signed cancelation form on 8-6-13.  During the retroactive cancelation process the winery owners renewed discussions with agent in an effort to obtain more acceptable coverage.  No contract was ever finalized, and coverage was not bound.   On 8-7-13, the winery burned to the ground resulting in a loss near 1 million dollars.  Owners pursued contractual, equitable and negligence causes of action.  Directed verdicts for the Defendants were obtained on the contract and negligence claims, and sent the equitable claim to the jury.  After 20 minutes of deliberation, the jury found unanimously for the Defendants.Harkness Edwards Vineyards, LLC. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance, No. 14-CI-00274 (Ky. Cir. Ct. June 26, 2016)  See The Voice

Mr. Walters represented MetLife in a case that set the standard in Kentucky for the involvement of the plaintiff's counsel in a medical examination of his client. In the underlying case, the Trial Judge ordered that the plaintiff's attorney would be permitted to videotape the medical examination of the plaintiff performed by the physician retained by MetLife. Mr. Walters, on behalf of MetLife, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded in a published opinion that, while the plaintiff was entitled to videotape the defense's medical examination under certain limited circumstances, there must be a specific showing by plaintiff's counsel of a need for such videotaping.  Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Robert B. Overstreet, Judge, Kentucky Supreme Court, 103 S.W.3d 31 (2003).  See KTCR Report

Mr. Walters represented Mr. Sexton in a case that found a civil defendant in Kentucky had the right to choose the physician who will examine the plaintiff. The Judge in the underlying case ordered that the Court would choose a physician to perform a medical examination on the plaintiff, as opposed to allowing the defendant to make that choice. Mr. Walters appealed the Judge's decision directly to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, arguing that the Trial Judge did not have the authority to choose the examining physician on behalf of the defendant. The Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed, and concluded that the defendant and his counsel had sole discretion to select a physician. The decision was not appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals' decision was published.  Richard S. Sexton v. Stephen L. Bates, Judge, Kentucky Court of Appeals, 41 S.W.3d 452 (2001). 

Mr. Walters obtained a defense verdict at trial for an employer and employee in an action arising out of an automobile accident. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict of the Fayette Circuit Court, finding that the employee was not liable to the plaintiff based on the doctrine of sudden emergency when brakes on the employer's truck did not work properly, forcing the employee to swerve and cross the center lane of traffic, thereby hitting the plaintiff's vehicle. The Trial Court gave the jury a sudden emergency instruction. The Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain an instruction on sudden emergency.  Bailey v. MCM Bus. Servs., 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 73, 1, 2009 WL 1562848.  See KTCR Report.

Mr. Walters was granted summary judgment on behalf of an insured in Pulaski Circuit Court upon proof of a release the injured party executed in favor of the insured. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, finding no grounds to support invalidating the release as the injured party failed to produce evidence that the insured violated any legal duty owed to her.  Coomer v. Phelps, 172 S.W.3d 389, 2005 Ky. LEXIS 298. 

After obtaining a defense verdict at trial in Fayette Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the Trial Court did not err in failing to direct a verdict in favor of Plaintiff because the evidence supported a verdict in favor of the defendant where it permitted the jury to conclude that the defendant consistently maintained a proper lookout but the plaintiff failed to do so. As such, the Trial Court did not err in refusing to conclude as a matter of law that the defendant acted negligently or breached his duty to keep a proper lookout.  Kelley v. Poore, 328 S.W.3d 683, 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 251.  See KTCR Report.

Mr. Walters was granted summary judgment for an insurer by the Jefferson Circuit Court on the basis that the insurance policy did not provide extraterritorial coverage for an employee of the insured. The employee was injured outside Kentucky and was a Florida resident who had never performed work in Kentucky on the insured's behalf. Therefore, in accordance with the policy, the employee could be covered by the policy only if the extraterritorial coverage provisions of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.670(1)(b) applied. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the Jefferson Circuit Court, found that they did not.  Peabody Painting & Waterproofing, Inc. v. Ky. Employers' Mut. Ins. Co., 329 S.W.3d 684, 2010 Ky. App. LEXIS 238. 
 

Location: 
Lexington Office