dissenting.
I disagree with the majority because I find that the attempted actions of the Executive Branch Ethics Commission against Don Stephens conflicted with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Franklin Circuit Court over the Kentucky Central Life liquidation proceedings. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Kentucky statutory law supports Stephens’ assertion that the Franklin Circuit Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters concerning the Kentucky Central Life liquidation. KRS 304.33-190(2) provides:
Upon the issuance of an order directing the commissioner to liquidate a domestic insurer, the court shall have exclusive *75jurisdiction over all matters relating to the liquidation, including, but not limited to, the proper scope and application of the provisions of this subtitle to the liquidation as well as all interpretation and enforceability of all contracts of insurance to which the insurer is a party. (Emphasis added).
Language of the like can also be found at KRS 304.33-040(3)(a), wherein it states “[t]he court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, hear, or determine all matters in any way relating to any delinquency proceeding under this subtitle, including, but not limited to, all disputes involving purported assets of the insurer.” (Emphasis added).
In Kentucky Central Life Insurance Company v. Stephens, Ky., 897 S.W.2d 583 (1995), this Court held that a circuit court is empowered by KRS 304.33-040 to have exclusive jurisdiction and to take any action essential to carry out the mandates of that subtitle. Id. at 588. Considering case law and the above-mentioned statutory language, I believe that the circuit court enjoys exclusive authority over all matters related to the Kentucky Central Life liquidation, which would include Stephens’ alleged violation of the ethics code. The majority believes that no irreparable harm would occur if Stephens was forced to exhaust the remaining administrative remedies available to him. However, the majority’s decision allows the Commission to continue its actions against Stephens. Consequently, the result reached today effectively condones an agency of the executive branch of this Commonwealth to invade the province of the judiciary, which is contrary to the separation of powers doctrine.
I recognize the importance of a party exhausting all available remedies before seeking review in a higher court. However, when an action by an administrative agency violates the jurisdiction of the courts, relief sought from the circuit court is appropriate as opposed to one seeking administrative remedies. In Goodwin v. City of Louisville, 309 Ky. 11, 215 S.W.2d 557 (1948), the right of a party to seek direct judicial relief was recognized, instead of having to use available administrative remedial procedures, whenever the issue of jurisdiction is a question of law. Here the circuit court possessed exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to KRS 304.33 et seq. Moreover, the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over all matters related to the Kentucky Central Life liquidation. I would hold that any administrative action taken by the Commission against Stephens falls within this jurisdiction. Accordingly, the actions attempted by the Commission against Stephens conflicted with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Franklin Circuit Court.
I further disagree with the majority’s interpretation of KRS 304.33-190(2). While the majority states that it is clear that the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to the Kentucky Central Life liquidation, the matters at issue here are dismissed as “personal” and as having no relation to the liquidation proceedings. ‘“Where the words used in a statute are clear and unambiguous and express the legislative intent, there is no room for construction and the statute must be accepted as it is written.” Griffin v. City of Bowling Green, Ky., 458 S.W.2d 456, 457 (1970). The language provided by KRS 304.33-190(2), as well as KRS 304.33-040(3)(a), is very clear when it states that the court shall have “exclusive jurisdiction” concerning “all matters” related to liquidation proceedings. I do not find that any absurdities will result from accepting the language as it is written. Furthermore, the holding today amounts to nothing more than a subversion of the unambiguous leg*76islative intent behind Subtitle 33. Following the unambiguous language of the above statutes would not serve to nullify the provisions of the Executive Branch Code of Ethics, much less negatively impact the Commission’s ability to institute proper actions that do not conflict with any matters within the purview of the judicial branch.
Finally, I do not believe that the issue of summary judgment is moot, and I would hold that summary judgment was properly granted in this case. “Summary judgment is properly entered if the pleadings and all relevant discovery indicate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. v. Epperson, Ky., 946 S.W.2d 413, 414 (1996). Additionally, it is necessary to view the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, and any doubts must be resolved in that particular party’s favor. Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., Ky., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (1991). Here the circuit court found, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that there existed no genuine issue of material fact for trial. Stephens’ motion for summary judgment was supported by affidavits that were not contested in any form or fashion by the Commission. “If uncon-troverted affidavits which clearly disclose the facts show that a genuine issue does not exist, the opposing party has an obligation to do something more than rely upon the allegations of his pleading.” Continental Casualty Company, Inc. v. Belknap Hardware & Manufacturing Company, Ky., 281 S.W.2d 914, 916 (1955). Stephens provided evidence that no genuine issue of material fact was present, and the Commission failed to put forth any information to merit a dismissal of the summary judgment motion. Thus, I find no error in the circuit court’s decision to grant Stephens’ motion for summary judgment.
For the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Franklin Circuit Court.
JOHNSTONE, J., joins this dissent.