 |
 |
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
urance policies, the insured is entitled to secure coverage from a single policy of its choice that covers `all sums' incurred as damages `during the policy period,' subject to that policy's limit of coverage." Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.
We find appellees' reliance on the Goodyear case misplaced for two reasons. First, as the Court noted in the Goodyear case, " he issue of allocation arises in situations involving long-term injury or damage, such as environmental cleanup claims where it is difficult to determine which insurer must bear the loss." Id. at 5. The case sub judice does not involve a long-term injury or damage. Rather, it involves an auto accident and based upon the policies at issue and the language contained in those policies, it is relatively easy to determine who must bear the loss.
Further, the Ohio Supreme Court specifically noted, in the Goodyear case, that:
"The starting point to determining the scope of coverage is the language of the insurance policies.
"* * *
"It is well settled that `insurance policies should be enforced in accordance with their terms as are other written contracts. Where the provisions of the policy are clear and unambiguous, courts cannot enlarge the contract by implication so as to embrace an object distinct from that originally contemplated by the parties." Id. at 7, 8.
Second, unlike the policy in Goodyear that indicated it would cover all sums incurred as damages for injury during the policy period, Federal's business auto policy specifically provides that, " ur share is the proportion that our limit of liability bears to the total of all applicable limits of liability for coverage on" either a primary or excess basis. See Ohio Uninsured Motorists Coverage Bodily Injury Endorsement at page 2. Also, Federal's commercial umbrella policy provides solely excess coverage and does not prorate if other insurance applies to the claim. See Federal Umbrella Policy, Form 07-02-0815, at 18.
Therefore, we decline to adopt the "all sums" approach, in cases involving motor vehicle policies of insurance, as we find this is not the type of case in which the Ohio Supreme Court contemplated the use of the "all-sums" approach for purposes of allocation. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it denied appellees' request to grant the decedent's estate judgment in the full amount against Federal.
Appellees' First Assignment of Error on cross-appeal is overruled.
II.
In their Second Assignment of Error, on cross-appeal, appellees maintain the trial court erred in not awarding prejudgment interest against Federal. We agree.
An appellate court's review of a trial court's award of prejudgment interest is governed by an abuse of discretion standard. Landis v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 339, 1998-Ohio-387. In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
In its judgment entry, the trial court concluded as follows:
"* * * Because the arbitrators' award was not reduced to present value in any fashion, the Court concludes that the arbitrators' award provides full compensation, calculated as of 9/19/2001, for any and all past, present, or future damages and, thus, an award of prejudgment interest thereon is neither justified nor required to make the claimants whole." Judgment Entry, Oct. 16, 2002, at 7.
R.C. 1343.03(A) governs the award of prejudgment interest. This statute pro
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.
|
|