 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hartley v. Allstate Insurance Co.12/17/2003
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Appellant, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas that granted the motion for summary judgment of Appellee, Barbara Holden Hartley. We reverse and remand.
I.
This appeal arises from an automobile accident that involved Ms. Hartley's mother and an underinsured driver. As a result of the accident, Ms. Hartley's mother was killed, and her estate recovered monetary proceeds from her mother's insurance policy and the underinsured driver's insurance policy. The probate court later allocated wrongful death proceeds to Ms. Hartley. Notwithstanding Ms. Hartley's award of wrongful death proceeds, she filed a claim with Allstate for uninsured/underinsured ("UM/UIM") motorist coverage. Allstate denied her claim. Subsequently, Ms. Hartley requested Allstate to reconsider its decision, which denied coverage, in light of a decision issued by the Supreme Court of Ohio, namely, Moore v. State Auto Mutual Insurance Company (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 27. In this subsequent request, Ms. Hartley "demanded * coverage for the original claim and contract interest[.]" The parties agreed that the claim could be resolved for $50,000.00, and that this value was exclusive of interest; however, Allstate did not pay the $50,000.00 or the interest. Consequently, Ms. Hartley filed a complaint alleging Allstate breached its contract of insurance and sought $50,000.00 plus interest. On June 4, 2002, the parties then entered into mediation, and reached a partial settlement. The only issue that remained following the mediation concerned Ms. Hartley's entitlement to interest. Accordingly, Ms. Hartley moved for summary judgment regarding the issue of interest. The trial court granted Ms. Hartley's motion, and concluded that she was entitled to interest. It is from this judgment that Allstate timely appeals, and raises two assignments of error for review. As these two assignments of error involve similar issues of law and fact, we will address them together.
II.
First Assignment of Error
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AT LAW IN RULING THAT 'PRE-SETTLEMENT INTEREST' CAN BE AWARDED ON DISPUTES THAT ARE RESOLVED BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES."
Second Assignment of Error
"IN ADDITION TO ERRING ON THE ISSUE OF 'PRE-SETTLEMENT INTEREST', THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WITH REGARD TO THE DATE IT SELECTED FROM WHICH INTEREST SHOULD RUN."
In its first assignment of error, Allstate contends that the trial court erroneously determined that Ms. Hartley was entitled to pre-settlement interest. In its second assignment of error, Allstate maintains its contention that Ms. Hartley is not entitled to pre-settlement interest, and further contends that the trial court selected an inequitable date to commence the accrual of interest. Allstate's contentions have merit.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate when:
"(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party." Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327.
To succeed on a summary judgment motion, the movant "bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact conc
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.
|
|