 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris v. Shy5/12/2000
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
This case comes before the court on appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, which granted appellees' motions for summary judgment. The trial court found that appellees, Grange Mutual Casualty Insurance Company ("Grange") and State Farm Mutual insurance Company ("State Farm"), were each entitled to a setoff of the full amount received by appellant, Frances Harris, from the tortfeasor, Regina Shy. The trial court also concluded that the State Farm and Grange underinsured/uninsured motor vehicle policies con- tained valid and enforceable anti-stacking clauses.
On December 29, 1996, Harris was a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by Mary Ackerman. At the intersection of Reynolds Road and Central Avenue, the Ackerman vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by Regina Shy. As a result of the accident, Harris was injured.
At the time of the collision, Shy was insured by State Farm, having liability coverage with a limit of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. Ackerman was also insured by State Farm, with an underinsured motorist coverage limits of $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident. Harris was insured by Grange; her underinsured motorist coverage had the same limits as the two State Farm policies.
Harris filed suit against Ackerman, Shy, State Farm and Grange. In her first count, Harris asked for damages for the personal injury she suffered as a result of the negligence of Shy, Ackerman and State Farm (Shy's employer). In her second count, Harris asked the court to declare that she was entitled to underinsured benefits under Ackerman's State Farm policy and her own Grange policy.
On October 30, 1997, Harris entered into a settlement agreement with Shy. Pursuant to the agreement, Shy paid Harris $100,000, the single person limit of her liability coverage. State Farm and Grange waived any subrogation rights that might arise from Harris' underinsured claims against them. In December 1997, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the claim against Shy.
On December 1, 1997, State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that pursuant to R.C. 3937.18(A)(2), as effective October 20, 1994, it was allowed to offset the amount, $100,000, available in underinsured motorist coverage against the settlement of $100,000 received from Shy. Therefore, State Farm asserted that Harris could not recover under the underinsured motorist provision of Ackerman's State Farm policy. Subsequently, Grange filed a motion for summary judgment, also contending that it was entitled to a setoff of $100,000; thus, Harris was not entitled to recover any amount pursuant to the terms of her underinsured motorist policy.
In her combined motion for summary judgment and memorandum in opposition, Harris urged that the setoff proposed by State Farm and Grange, under which a single liability payment could be used twice as an offset against separate coverages was "an unconscionable and unjust enrichment * violative of R.C. 3937.18(A)(2)." Harris also maintained that the anti-stacking provisions found in the State Farm and Grange policies violated R.C. 3937.18(A)(2) "insofar as they operate to impermissibly reduce underinsured motorist coverage provided by the policies." State Farm and Grange filed memoranda in opposition to Harris' motion for summary judgment in which they addressed both the issue of setoff and the issue of anti-stacking.
On December 1, 1998, the trial court entered a judgment granting State Farm's and Grange's motions for summary judgment, denying Harris' motion for summary judgment and dismissing, with
prejudice, the claims against the two insuran
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|