 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Insurance Co. v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus9/9/2003
("Farmers") provided primary coverage to any coverage provided by Indiana.
On December 17, 2001, in the lawsuit filed by Indiana, appellees moved to confirm the arbitration award and reduce the award to judgment against Federal, Indiana and Cincinnati. Appellees also filed a motion for prejudgment interest. On January 11, 2002, Indiana moved for summary judgment against Cincinnati and Federal claiming Cincinnati and Federal provided primary coverage to the decedent and his estate. Indiana argued its insured, Appellee Scott, would be fully compensated by virtue of a distribution of her share of the wrongful death proceeds as a beneficiary of her brother's estate, for which Cincinnati and Federal provided primary coverage. Thus, Indiana maintained that it owed no UIM benefits to Appellee Scott.
On January 16, 2002, Farmers moved to transfer venue to Tuscarawas County. On January 18, 2002, Federal filed a brief in opposition to the motion to reduce the arbitration award to judgment and opposed appellees' motion for prejudgment interest. Federal also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of coverage under its two policies issued to Greer. On January 31, 2002, Cincinnati filed an amended answer and cross-claim, against Federal, claiming that Federal afforded coverage on a pro rata basis with Cincinnati.
Subsequently, on March 19, 2002, the Stark County Court of Common Pleas transferred this matter to the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas. On October 16, 2002, the trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment against Federal and denied Federal's cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court concluded Federal owed coverage, to John McDonald and his estate, under its policies issued to Greer. The trial court also awarded prejudgment interest from the date of the arbitrators' award.
Federal timely filed a notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignments of error for our consideration:
"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT DENIED THE CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY BY DISREGARDING THE DRIVE OTHER CAR BROADENED COVERAGE ENDORSEMENT IN FEDERAL'S BUSINESS AUTO POLICY WHICH, BECAUSE IT CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXTENDS UM/UIM COVERAGE TO IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS, DISTINGUISHES THIS CASE FROM SCOTT-PONTZER V. LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO., 85 OHIO ST.3D 660, 1999-OHIO-292.
"II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT ENTERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN CONCLUDING THAT THE DECEDENT, JOHN L. MCDONALD, WAS AN INSURED UNDER THE FEDERAL BUSINESS AUTO AND COMMERCIAL UMBRELLA POLICIES AS A `FAMILY MEMBER' OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CORPORATE NAMED INSURED AND, THEREFORE, THAT UM/UIM COVERAGE WAS AVAILABLE UNDER FEDERAL'S POLICIES FOR HIS WRONGFUL DEATH.
"III. THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL FINDING THAT FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDING WAS WITHOUT A RESERVATION BY FEDERAL OF ITS RIGHT TO LITIGATE COVERAGE DEFENSES UNDER FEDERAL'S BUSINESS AUTO AND COMMERCIAL UMBRELLA POLICIES WAS ERRONEOUS, UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, AND CONTRARY TO LAW.
ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIAL COURT'S CONFIRMATION OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD: (1) ERRONEOUSLY ENTERED JUDGMENT THEREON AGAINST FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ON THE BUSINESS AUTO POLICY IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000.00 AND; (2) ERRONEOUSLY ENTERED JUDGMENT THEREON AGAINST FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ON THE COMMERCIAL UMBRELLA POLICY IN THE AMOUNT OF $430,000.00.
"IV. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF THE TRIAL COURT'S FACTUAL FINDING THAT FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDING WAS WITHOUT A RESERVATION BY FEDERAL OF I
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|