 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dickerson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.12/15/2003
JUDGMENT: Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
. Although originally placed on our accelerated calendar, we have elected, pursuant to Loc.R. 12(5), to issue a full opinion in lieu of a judgment entry.
. Plaintiff-Appellant, Brenda Dickerson, appeals a judgment of the Defiance County Common Pleas Court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). Dickerson maintains the trial court erred by finding that the named driver exclusion contained in her automobile insurance policy limited her recovery of underinsured motorist ("UIM") benefits. We find that the limitation on Dickerson's UIM coverage sought by State Farm is not permissible under Ohio law. Therefore, we sustain Dickerson's assignment of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. On November 2, 1997, Dickerson and State Farm entered into an automobile liability insurance policy that included UIM coverage. The policy also included a named driver exclusion specifically excluding all coverage under Dickerson's policy for any loss caused by her daughter, Adele Parrish.
. Subsequently, on November 16, 1998, both Adele and Dickerson's son, Gregory Parrish, were killed when the car driven by Adele collided with a tractor trailer. At the time of the accident, Adele had an insurance policy with Progressive with a $12,500 liability limit.
. Dickerson brought a wrongful death claim against Adele's estate based upon the death of her son, Gregory. Adele's carrier paid the full $12,500 allowed under her policy, but these proceeds proved to be inadequate to fully compensate Dickerson's loss. Thereafter, Dickerson made a UIM claim under the underinsured motorist provision of her policy with State Farm. State Farm denied the claim maintaining that the policy's named driver exclusion precluded coverage because the loss had been caused by Adele.
. Dickerson brought suit challenging State Farm's denial of her claim, and both parties filed summary judgment motions. The trial court found that the named driver exclusion eliminated State Farm's liability for losses arising from the actions of Adele. Accordingly, the trial court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and denied Dickerson's. It is from this judgment Dickerson appeals presenting the following sole assignment of error for our review:
It was error for the Common Pleas Court to grant the motion for summary judgment of Defendant-Appellee State Farm Insurance and deny that of Plaintiff-Appellant Brenda Dickerson on the issue of whether Dickerson was entitled to underinsured motorist benefits when the exclusion relied upon by State Farm was not authorized by the Ohio Uninsured Motorist Act (R.C. 3937.18).
. In this assignment of error, Dickerson contends Ohio law does not permit named driver exclusions to exclude UIM coverage based upon wrongful death losses.
Standard of Review
. An appellate court reviews a summary judgment order de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate when, looking at the evidence as a whole: (1) no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, it appears that reasonable minds could only conclude in favor of the moving party. If any doubts exist, the issue must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party.
. The party moving for the summary judgment has the initial burden of producing some sort of evidence which affirmat
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|