 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parrish 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, Joseph Parrish ("Parrish"), 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"). Parrish maintains the trial court erred by finding that the named driver exclusion contained in his automobile insurance policy limited his recovery of underinsured motorist ("UIM") benefits. We determine that the applicable provisions of R.C.3937.18 do not permit the limitation on Parrish's UIM coverage sought by State Farm. Therefore, we sustain Parrish's assignment of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. On November 28, 1994, Parrish and State Farm entered into an automobile liability insurance policy that included UIM coverage. Then, on August 30, 1998, Parrish and State Farm modified the contract by inserting a named driver exclusion. The named driver exclusion specifically excluded from Parrish's policy all coverage for any loss caused by Parrish's daughter, Adele Parrish.
. Subsequently, on November 16, 1998, both Adele and Parrish'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.
. Parrish brought a wrongful death claim against Adele's estate based upon the death of Gregory. The full $12,500 allowed under Adele's policy was awarded, but the net proceeds were inadequate to fully cover Parrish's loss. Thereafter, Parrish made a UIM claim under his policy with State Farm. State Farm denied the claim maintaining the policy's named driver exclusion precluded coverage because the loss had been caused by Adele.
. Parrish brought suit challenging State Farm's denial of his 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 denied Parrish's motion for summary judgment and granted State Farm's. It is from this judgment Parrish 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 Joseph Parrish on the issue of whether Parrish 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 his assignment of error, Parrish contends Ohio law does not permit named driver exclusions to limit UIM coverage for losses based upon wrongful death claims.
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
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.
|
|