Holloway Construction Co. v. Smith (1984)

Decided December 20, 1984; Aker, J.; all concurred. The complete majority opinion was read in the preserved CAP reproduction. Full opinion.

Source note (2026-10-18):

• Links on this page to https://static.case.law/sw2d/683/cases/0248-01.json are an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.

Facts and procedure

Highway-construction blasting damaged the Smiths’ house. They recovered compensatory and punitive damages against contractor Holloway. The trial court dismissed Holloway’s third-party indemnity/contribution claim against the Commonwealth’s highway agency. The Court of Appeals upheld damages but ordered half-contribution; both the contractor and agency obtained discretionary review. Opinion, 683 S.W.2d at 249.

Full holdings and disposition

• Section 231 generally bars suit against the state without consent. Inverse condemnation is an exception for an unauthorized taking, destruction or injury of the claimant’s own property. Holloway could not use injury to the Smiths’ property to obtain its own indemnity/contribution; it had to pursue available statutory remedies.
• Punitive damages were supported by evidence that Holloway knew the danger and continued blasting despite notice of accumulating damage: reckless or wanton disregard could justify the award. The text states inconsistent punitive-dollar amounts in different passages; no single figure is presented here as a resolved factual holding.
• Reversed insofar as the Court of Appeals imposed contribution on the highway agency; otherwise affirmed. Opinion, 683 S.W.2d at 249–50.

Application boundary

For kentucky tax-sale excess, this distinguishes a claim for appropriation of the claimant’s own retained property interest from an assertion that ordinary unjust-enrichment language automatically waives Commonwealth immunity. The opinion did not decide Revenue surplus or an administrative refund timetable. The actual property interest and remedy remain necessary; no adjudication of every hypothetical tax transaction is demanded. Targeted treatment review is not a comprehensive still-good-law certificate.

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify primary sources and current law before acting.