 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. Crider2/9/2004
rage Form Declarations Page (Form CA 7000 [04-96]) provides that:
ach of the following coverage will apply only to those "autos" shown as covered "autos." Covered "autos" are designated for a particular coverage by the entry of one or more Covered Auto Symbols described in Section I of the Business Auto Coverage Form, CA 0001. (Emphasis added.)
. The declarations page then goes onto provide that UM coverage applies only to those "auto" designated under "Symbol 7" in the business auto coverage form (CA 0001). Section I of the business auto coverage form defines "symbol 7" covered autos as: "Specifically Described `Autos.' Only those `autos' described in Item Three of the declarations for which a premium charge is shown * * *." Item Three of the business auto coverage form indicates that the "schedule of covered autos" are found in Form 7002. Form 7002 lists three autos, a 1989 Chevrolet, a 1992 Trailer, and 1987 GMC, and lists the premiums therefore. The 1985 Honda ATV, driven by Laura at the time of the accident, is not included in the schedule of covered autos. Therefore, by virtue of not being included in the schedule of covered autos (Form No. CA 7002), no UM coverage arises.
. Because appellants are excluded from UM coverage under the Motorist business auto policy by virtue of not occupying a covered auto as defined by "Symbol 7," there is also no UM coverage under this policy for appellants' wrongful death claims.
. Accordingly, appellants' fifth and sixth assignments of error are hereby overruled.
. In summary, appellants' first and second assignments of error are sustained in part and overruled in part, and their third, fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error are overruled.
. Having found error prejudicial to appellants herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and cause remanded.
SHAW, P.J., and BRYANT, J., concur.
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.
|
|