 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gibbons-Barry v. Cincinnati Insurance Companies9/19/2002
. Plaintiff-appellant, Kathleen Gibbons-Barry, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee, The Cincinnati Insurance Companies. For the following reasons, we affirm.
. On October 17, 1998, appellant's husband, Mohamed Barry, was fatally injured in an automobile accident in the Ivory Coast of Africa. The identity of the individual who struck Mr. Barry's vehicle is unknown. On October 17, 2000, appellant brought suit against the unknown driver, The Cincinnati Insurance Companies, Progressive Insurance and a number of John Doe defendant insurance companies. In her complaint, appellant asserted that the driver who struck her husband's vehicle was either uninsured or underinsured, and that the insurance-company defendants failed to provide coverage under the uninsured or underinsured motorist provisions of the various policies for damages associated with her husband's wrongful death.
. During the pendency of the lawsuit, Progressive Insurance settled with appellant. Appellee, who provided both automobile and homeowner's insurance to appellant, moved for summary judgment. In support of its motion for summary judgment, appellee first argued that appellant was not entitled to any coverage under the automobile policy because Mr. Barry's accident occurred outside of the geographical area specified in the policy as the "policy territory." Appellee also argued that appellant was not entitled to uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage under the homeowner's policy. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and appellant appealed that decision to this court.
. On appeal, appellant assigns the following error:
. "The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee's motion for summary judgment."
. Appellate review of summary judgment motions is de novo. Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. Of Commrs. (1997), 123 Ohio App.3d 158, 162. "When reviewing a trial court's ruling on summary judgment, the court of appeals conducts an independent review of the record and stands in the shoes of the trial court." Mergenthal v. Star Banc Corp. (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 100, 103. 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) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 183.
. By her single assignment of error, appellant advances two arguments. In the first, appellant maintains that the trial court erred when it concluded that the geographical limitation provision in appellant's automobile policy prevented appellant from recovering under that policy. The geographical limitation provision reads:
. "POLICY PERIOD AND TERRITORY
. "This policy applies only to accidents and losses which occur:
. "1. During the policy period as shown in the Declarations; and
. "2. Within the policy territory.
. "The policy territory is:
. "1. The United States of America, its territories or possessions;
. "2. Puerto Rico; or
. "3. Canada."
. Appellant does not challenge the validity of the geographical limitation provision but, instead, argues that the provision is inapplicable because the "losses" associated with her husband's accident occurred in the United States. Neither "accident" no
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|