 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sarmiento v. Grange Mutual Insurnace Co.12/4/2003
. Plaintiffs-appellants Francisco Sarmiento, Rita Sarmiento, Braulio Sarmiento, Jesus Sarmiento, Delores Sarmiento, David Camacho, and David Camacho III (referred to as individuals or collectively as "Sarmientos") appeal the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Grange Mutual Casualty Company ("Grange"). For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
. On November 5, 1998, Rita Sarmiento was operating her vehicle in Portales, New Mexico, when she was involved in an automobile accident. Accompanying her in the vehicle were the other above-named appellants. The tortfeasor, a New Mexico resident, was an uninsured motorist at the time of the accident. Rita Sarmiento maintained a policy of insurance through Grange ("Policy").
. Pursuant to New Mexico law applicable at the time of the accident, all claims for personal injury are subject to a three-year statute of limitation. N.M. Stat.Ann. 37-1-8. The Policy, however, contained an endorsement providing that any suit against Grange must be commenced within two years.
. On November 5, 2001, Sarmientos filed suit against Grange seeking uninsured benefits. Grange responded, arguing that Sarmientos failed to bring their claim within the provisions of the two-year limitation and, therefore, Sarmientos' claims are prohibited. Each party then filed a motion for summary judgment.
. On March 27, 2003, the trial court ruled in favor of Grange, granting its motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Sarmientos filed a timely appeal and advance one assignment of error for our review.
I.
. Civ.R. 56 provides that summary judgment may be granted only after the trial court determines: 1) no genuine issues as to any material fact remain 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.
. It is well established that the party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no issues of material fact exist for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1987), 477 U.S. 317, 330. The record on summary judgment must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150.
. In moving for summary judgment, the "moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact or material element of the nonmoving party's claim." Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280. Thereafter, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts by the means listed in Civ.R. 56(C) showing a genuine issue for trial exists. Id. A motion for summary judgment forces the plaintiff to produce probative evidence on all essential elements of his case for which he has the burden of production at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1987), 477 U.S. 317, 330.
. This court reviews the lower court's granting of summary judgment de novo. Ekstrom v. Cuy. Cty. Comm. College, 150 Ohio App.3d 169, 2002-Ohio-6228.
II.
. In their sole assignment of error, Sarmientos argue that "the trial court erred to the prejudice of appellants by granting appellee Grange Mutual Casualty Company's motion for summary judgment." For
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.
|
|