 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. Crider2/9/2004
JUDGMENTS: Judgments affirmed in part and reversed in part and cause remanded.
. Plaintiffs-appellants, Laura Adams, et al., (hereinafter, "appellants") appeal the judgment of the Mercer County Common Pleas Court, granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees, Grange Mutual Casualty Company and Motorist Mutual Insurance Company.
. The facts and procedural history pertinent to the case sub judice are as follows.
. On June 14, 1998, Christopher Crider was operating a Kawasaki 125 motor bike and crossed the center line of Shelly Road striking head on a 1985 Honda ATV 200 driven by Laura Adams. Laura's two sons, Adam Kiracofe and Brody Adams, were also occupying the ATV at the time of the collision. Adam Kiracofe died as a result of the collision and Laura and Brody suffered bodily injury . Laura's husband, Dan Adams was the owner of the ATV involved in the accident. It was agreed, for purposes of the summary judgment motions, that Christopher Crider was at fault, and that he was an uninsured motorist.
. Appellants had three policies of insurance in effect when the accident occurred, including a personal automobile policy with Grange Mutual Casualty Company (hereinafter, "Grange Insurance"), a farmowner's policy with Grange Insurance, and a business policy with Motorist Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter, "Motorist Mutual").
. Appellants filed complaints against the tortfeasor, Christopher Crider, and their two insurance providers for uninsured motorist coverage under the three policies of insurance listed above. Appellants moved for summary judgment against Grange Insurance and Motorist Mutual. In response to appellants' motion, Grange Insurance and Motorist Mutual moved for summary judgment against appellants. The trial court granted summary judgment to Grange Insurance and Motorist Mutual.
. It is from this judgment that appellants appeal and present the following six assignments of error for our review. Standard of Review
. Because the issues herein relate to the trial court's decision to grant Grange Insurance and Motorist Mutual's motions for summary judgment, we begin by establishing this Court's standard of review.
. A court may not grant a motion for summary judgment unless the record demonstrates: 1) that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; 2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and; 3) that, after construing the evidence most strongly in the non-movant's favor, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Civ.R. 56(C); Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 686-687. In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the trial court is not permitted to weigh evidence or choose among reasonable inferences; rather, the court must evaluate evidence, taking all permissible inferences and resolving questions of credibility in favor of the non-movant. Jacobs v. Racevskis (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 1, 7. In addition, appellate review of summary judgment determinations is conducted on a de novo basis. Griner v. Minster Bd. of Education (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 425, 430. Therefore, this Court considers the motion independently and without deference to the trial court's findings. J.A. Industries, Inc. v. All American Plastics, Inc. (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 76, 82.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
The trial court erred in denying plaintiff's/appellant's motion for summary judgment against Grange Insurance on the issue of uninsured motorist coverage on plaintiff's/appellant's automobile policy. Said
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|