(1966), Sahloff v. Western Casualty & Surety Co., 45 Wis.2d 60, 171 N.W.2d 914, 917 (1969)); Hettel v. Rye, 251 Ark. 868, 475 S.W.2d 536, 537-538 (1972) (tortfeasor dismissed from suit, but cause of action under uninsured motorist clause not required to be dismissed). 11 . Simon v. Continental Ins. Co., Ky., 724 S.W.2d 210, 212-213 (1986); Hendrix v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 823 S.W.2d 937, 938 (1991); see also Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. McKinney, Ky., 831 S.W.2d 164, 166 (1992) (language of insurance contract should be liberally construed and all doubts resolved in favor of the insured). 12 . Anderson v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., Ky., 281 Ky. 531, 136 S.W.2d 741, 742-743 (1940). 13 .See Blue Valley Creamery Co. v. Cronimus, Ky., 270 Ky. 496, 110 S.W.2d 286, 290 (1937)(<HOLDING>). COOPER, Justice, Dissenting. As Justice
holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party holding that the common claims or defenses test applies to a claim of fraudulent joinder asserted by a diverse principal as to a nondiverse agent because a finding of fraudulent joinder as to the agent necessarily involves a decision on the merits as to the principal given the doctrine of respondeat superior holding in accordance with the restatement that a master may be subject to liability for the torts of his servants acting outside the scope of their employment if the servants conduct violated a nondelegable duty of the master or the servant purported to act on behalf of the principal there was reliance upon the apparent authority or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relationship holding that the liability of a principal or master to a third person based upon respondeat superior is purely derivative and thus a judgment on the merits for or against the agent or servant is res judicata visavis the principal or master though he was not a party to the action holding that minor cannot establish relationship of master and servant and so cannot be held liable under doctrine of respondeat superior