 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sheaffer v. Westfield Insurance Co.9/10/2003
JUDGMENT: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded
This matter is before the Court upon an application for further consideration which we granted, by way of judgment entry, on August 1, 2003. This court originally issued its opinion in this matter on April 29, 2003. Thereafter, on May 9, 2003, Appellees Ricky Lee Sheaffer, et al. ("appellees") filed a motion for reconsideration. In their motion, appellees requested that we reconsider our opinion in order to address a portion of our decision which sustained Appellant Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company's ("Argonaut") Second Assignment of Error.
On June 17, 2003, we granted appellees' motion and filed a judgment entry in which we concluded Argonaut's umbrella policy is a motor vehicle liability policy and contains UM coverage in the limit amount of $1,000,000. We did not address Argonaut's Third, Fourth or Fifth Assignments of Error. Thereafter, on June 24, 2003, appellees filed an application for further consideration in which they now request the court to address the disposition of Argonaut's Second Assignment of Error and the merits of Argonaut's Third, Fourth and Fifth Assignments of Error.
We granted appellees' request and the following memorandum opinion and judgment entry addresses these assignments of error. Argonaut's Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Assignments of Error are as follows:
"II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DETERMINING THE ARGONAUT UMBRELLA POLICY CONTAINS $1,000,000 OF UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE AS A MATTER OF LAW ACCORDING TO R.C. ยง3937.18.
"III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DETERMINING THAT APPELLEES AND APPELLEES' DECEDENT WERE INSUREDS UNDER THE ARGONAUT POLICIES.
"IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING APPELLEES $525,000 OF DAMAGES.
"V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY GRANTING PREJUDGMENT INTEREST FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2001 RATHER THAN THE DATE OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECISION."
II.
In its Second Assignment of Error, Argonaut argues the trial court erred when it determined its umbrella policy contains $1,000,000 of UM coverage as a matter of law according to R.C. 3937.18. In our judgment entry addressing appellees' first motion for reconsideration, we found Argonaut's umbrella policy to be a motor vehicle liability policy containing UM coverage in the limit amount of $1,000,000. However, in doing so, we failed to formally overrule Argonaut's Second Assignment of Error.
Accordingly, based upon our decision in the Judgment Entry filed on June 17, 2003, we hereby vacate our decision as it pertains to the Second Assignment of Error in the memorandum opinion and judgment entry filed on April 29, 2003. We re-affirm our judgment entry filed on June 17, 2003, and overrule Argonaut's Second Assignment of Error.
III.
In its Third Assignment of Error, Argonaut contends that even if UM/UIM coverage arises by operation of law, it does not arise in favor of appellees because they are not "insureds" under the policies Argonaut issued to the decedent's employer, Rhode's Market, Inc. We disagree.
Argonaut's arguments, as to this assignment of error, focus on the language contained in its CGL policy. However, we previously determined, in Argonaut's First Assignment of Error, that Argonaut's CGL policy is not a motor vehicle policy subject to the mandates of R.C. 3937.18. Therefore, our analysis will focus on Westfield's commercial auto policy and whether appellees are "insureds" under the commercial auto policy such that they qualify as "insureds" under Argonaut's umbrella policy. As noted in Argonaut's Second Assignment of Error, we p
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.
|
|