Haley Welsh, et al. v. Bell Textron, Inc., et al.

Summary

The court denied Haley Welsh’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to modify the dismissal with prejudice of claims against the Estate of Gale Alleman, Jr. The court held that the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision supported the dismissal and that Welsh had not shown extraordinary circumstances or timely pursued relief under Rule 59(e). The court clarified that the dismissal did not adjudicate Alleman’s fault and that the remaining parties may seek apportionment of fault to the Alleman Estate at trial if they satisfy Kentucky law’s evidentiary requirements.

Holdings

1. Welsh was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because she identified no extraordinary or exceptional circumstance, newly discovered evidence, change in controlling law, or manifest injustice justifying modification of the prior dismissal.
2. Welsh could not use Rule 60(b)(6) to obtain equivalent relief after failing to pursue an available Rule 59(e) motion within the twenty-eight-day deadline.
3. The prior dismissal did not adjudicate the Alleman Estate's fault and did not foreclose the remaining parties from seeking a fault-apportionment instruction against the estate at trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Welsh established extraordinary or exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the prior dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).
2. Whether a party that failed to pursue an available Rule 59(e) motion may obtain equivalent relief through Rule 60(b)(6).
3. Whether the prior immunity-based dismissal adjudicated the Alleman Estate's fault or precludes the remaining defendants from seeking apportionment of fault against the estate under Kentucky Revised Statutes section 411.182(4).

Disposition

other