 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ohayon v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois9/24/2003
{1} Appellants, Jonathan Ohayon and his parents, Jacob and Brenda Ohayon ("the Ohayons"), appeal from a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment to appellee, Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois ("Safeco"), on the Ohayons' claims for underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage. We affirm.
I.
{2} On August 6, 1996, while walking on a sidewalk at a mall in Sharon, Pennsylvania, Jonathan was struck and injured by a vehicle driven by the tortfeasor. Jonathan settled his claim against the tortfeasor for the tortfeasor's insurance policy's bodily injury coverage limit of $100,000.
{3} At the time of the accident, Safeco insured, under a single policy, three separate vehicles owned by Jacob and Brenda. The policy's declarations limited both liability and UIM coverage to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The insured vehicles were principally garaged at the Ohayon residence in Akron, Ohio.
{4} On July 25, 1997, the Ohayons filed a complaint in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a declaratory judgment determining their rights under the Safeco policy. On July 15, 1998, the trial court granted the Ohayons' motion for partial summary judgment on coverage issues and denied Safeco's cross-motion for summary judgment. That judgment was subsequently reversed by this court on the ground that the trial court erroneously applied Pennsylvania law, rather than Ohio law, to the interpretation of the insurance contract. Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois (Dec. 22, 1999), 9th Dist. No. 19617. This court remanded the cause for determination under Ohio law. Id. The Ohio Supreme Court allowed a discretionary appeal and affirmed this court's judgment. Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 474.
{5} On remand, Safeco filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Ohayons filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On January 6, 2003, the trial court granted summary judgment to Safeco and denied the Ohayons' cross-motion. Applying Ohio law, the trial court determined that (1) the policy provides unambiguous limits, and (2) an anti-stacking provision in the policy's UIM endorsement is invalid. Applying the policy's per-person limit, the trial court determined that although appellants were eligible for coverage in the amount of $100,000, Safeco was entitled to a $100,000 setoff from the settlement with the tortfeasor, and therefore no coverage remained.
{6} Appellants appeal, raising one assignment of error. Appellee cross-appeals, raising two assignments of error.
II
Appellants' Assignment of Error
"The lower court erred in determining that the appellee's policy was not ambiguous in defining the limits of liability and in determining that the individual coverages and not the [combined single limit] applied."
{7} In their sole assignment of error, the Ohayons essentially challenge the grant of summary judgment to Safeco. The Ohayons assert that the trial court erred when it determined that the Safeco policy unambiguously limited their UIM coverage to $100,000. We disagree.
{8} We begin our analysis by noting the appropriate standard of review. An appellate court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105. We apply the same standard as the trial court, viewing the facts in the case in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolving any doubt in favor of the nonmoving party. Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 7, 12.
{9} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper if "(1) No genuine issue as to any materi
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|