 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Troiano v. Steitz9/10/2004
nsurance context, the insurer customarily drafts the contract. Thus, an ambiguity in an insurance contract is ordinarily interpreted against the insurer and in favor of the insured. King v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 208, 519 N.E.2d 1380, syllabus."
"There are limitations to the preceding rule. `Although, as a rule, a policy of insurance that is reasonably open to different interpretations will be construed most favorably for the insured, that rule will not be applied so as to provide an unreasonable interpretation of the words of the policy.' Morfoot v. Stake (1963), 174 Ohio St. 506, 23 O.O.2d 144, 190 N.E.2d 573, paragraph one of the syllabus. Likewise, where `the plaintiff is not a party to contract of insurance * * *, [the plaintiff] is not in a position to urge, as one of the parties, that the contract be construed strictly against the other party.' Cook v. Kozell (1964), 176 Ohio St. 332, 336, 27 O.O.2d 275, 199 N.E.2d 566. This rings especially true where expanding coverage beyond a policyholder's needs will increase the policyholder's premiums. Id." Galatis, supra at 220. (Emphasis added).
The UM/UIM endorsement cannot be reasonably interpreted to include commuting to work as a duty performed by Christine Troiano at the time of the accident. Christine Troiano was not a named insured identified in the Nationwide business auto policy. As such, she is not entitled to strictly construe the policy language in a light most favorable to her position. Rather, she is entitled to a reasonable interpretation of the policy language.
How an employee commutes to work is the employee's choice or option, not a duty imposed by the employer. WCSD did not require Troiano to drive herself to work, or even to drive to work at all. Rather, Troiano was free to travel by any means or manner she desired. The endorsement definition is reasonably interpreted to include both full time employees and student teachers, who, not being "employee," would not fall within the scope and course clause, but would still be entitled to coverage under the "duty" clause of the definition.
The UM/UIM definitional language is not ambiguous, and it is not reasonable to interpret Troiano's commute to work as a duty of her employment. See, Mlecik v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. (Nov. 14, 2002), Cuyahoga App. No. 81110, 2002 Ohio 6222. Therefore, the trial court did not error in concluding Christine Troiano was not an insured under the Nationwide business auto policy at the time of the accident.
The January 16, 2004 entry of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J. Gwin, P.J. and Wise, J. concur
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the January 16, 2004 entry of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Costs assessed to appellant.
|