 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pitsenbarger v. Foos11/26/2003
. Rhonda Pitsenbarger, Trina Mapson, Teryl Boney, Kanesha Boney, and Tanika Ray are appealing the judgment of the Miami County Common Pleas Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company ("Travelers") and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company ("USF&G;).
. On January 14, 2001, Eddie Crenshaw was driving his vehicle with his wife, Lisa Jo Crenshaw, and Teryl Boney as passengers 1. At the same time, Timothy Foos was operating his vehicle in the opposite direction on the same highway. Foos lost control of his vehicle, causing it to go left of center and collide with Crenshaw's vehicle. As a result of the collision, Eddie and Lisa were killed, and Teryl Boney was injured.
. At the time of the collision, Lisa was employed by Kmart, which had a liability insurance contract with USF&G;with a limit of coverage of $2,000,000. Eddie was employed by Sally Beauty Company, which had a business automobile policy and two commercial general liability policies with Travelers. Boney also worked for Sally Beauty Company. Rhoda Pitsenbarger, the executor of Lisa's estate, brought a wrongful death suit against Foos, and a claim for underinsured motorist coverage against USF&G;and Travelers for Lisa's death. 2 The executor of Eddie's estate, Elizabeth Crenshaw, filed a wrongful death action against Foos and a claim for underinsured motorist coverage against Travelers and USF&G; 3 Boney, who suffered permanent bodily injuries as a result of the accident filed a personal injury suit against Foos and a claim for underinsured motorist coverage from Travelers. Teryl Boney's family members, Kanesha Boney and Tanika Ray, have likewise filed claims against Foos and Travelers. Because the cases arose out the same accident, the lower court combined the cases. Foos was insured by Safeco, who settled with the Appellants for the limits of Foos' bodily coverage - $300,000.
. On January 3, 2003, Pitsenbarger filed a motion for partial summary judgment against USF&G;on the issue of Lisa's estate's claim for UM/UIM coverage with USF&G; USF&G;filed a memorandum in opposition and its own motion for summary judgment. On October 16, 2002, Mapson filed a motion for summary judgment for Eddie's estate's claim pursuant to the insurance policies issued by Travelers to Sally Beauty Company. On January 29, 2003, Mapson also filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the insurance policy issued by USF&G; Travelers and USF&G;opposed Mapson's motion and each filed a motion for summary judgment themselves. Similarly, Boney and her family members filed a motion for summary judgment against Travelers, and Travelers filed a counter motion for summary judgment. On April 28, 2003, the trial court denied Pitsenbarger's, Mapson's, and Boney's motions for summary judgment and sustained USF&G;s and Travelers' motions for summary judgment. Pitsenbarger, Mapson, Boney, and Boney's family members have filed this appeal from that decision.
. The Appellant's raise various assignments of error but all essentially argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment and in granting USF&G;s and Travelers' motions for summary judgment.
. Our review of the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment is de novo. See Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 123 Ohio App.3d 158, 162. Civ.R. 56(C) provides that summary judgment may be granted when the moving party demonstrates that (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|