 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lane v. State Auto Insurance Companies9/27/2002
. This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action originally filed by Denise, Mark, and Matthew Lane (the Lanes) against State Auto Insurance Companies. The complaint alleged that Denise had been injured in an auto accident, and was paid $100,000 for her injures by the tortfeasor's insurance carrier. State Auto is the Lanes' own insurance carrier, and the underinsured motorist (UIM) policy limits are $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident. In the complaint, the Lanes asked the court to award them an additional $100,000 in UIM benefits.
. Subsequently, the Lanes filed an amended complaint adding various parties, including Ohio Mutual Insurance Group (OMIG). At the time of Denise's accident, OMIG insured Denise's employer, Martinos Talltales Inn, under a "special multi-peril" or commercial liability policy. The effective policy dates were September 18, 1998, through September 18, 1999, and policy limits were $2,000,000 (aggregate) for products and completed operations, and $1,000,000 for personal and advertising injuries.
. Ultimately, OMIG filed a motion for summary judgment on the coverage issue. The gist of the motion was that the Lanes were not entitled to UIM benefits because the OMIG policy was a commercial property coverage policy, not an automobile liability policy. Therefore, OMIG claimed that it had no obligation to offer UIM coverage. In this regard, OMIG relied on the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Davidson v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 262, 2001-Ohio-36, which held that incidental coverage for off-road and other similar vehicles does not transform an insurance policy into a motor vehicle policy and does not trigger the duty to offer UIM coverage.
. The trial court agreed with OMIG, and granted summary judgment in its favor. The Lanes now appeal, raising the following assignment of error:
. "I. The trial court erred in ruling that the Ohio Mutual Insurance policy was not a "motor vehicle liability policy of insurance" and thus not subject to the statutory provisions of Ohio Revised Code Section 3937.18.
. After considering the assignment of error, we find it without merit. Accordingly, the trial court judgment will be affirmed.
I.
. In their brief, the Lanes present two issues for review. The first issue is whether the Talltales Inn policy is a "motor vehicle liability policy of insurance" requiring OMIG to offer UIM coverage. The second issue is whether the trial court erred in finding that the insurance policy was not subject to the statutory provisions of R.C. 3937.18. However, the Lanes did not separate the argument in their brief. As a result, we will consider both points together.
. To resolve questions of insurance coverage, we apply the statutory law in effect when the parties enter into a contract of insurance. Ross v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies, 82 Ohio St.3d 281, 1998-Ohio-381, syllabus. As we mentioned, the policy in the present case was issued on September 18, 1998. At that time, insurers were prohibited from issuing or delivering any automobile or motor vehicle liability policy in Ohio unless they offered UIM coverage to persons insured under the policy. R.C. 3937.18(A)(2). Under the statute as it then existed, "automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy" meant: " ny policy of insurance that serves as proof of financial responsibility, as proof of financial responsibility is defined by division (K) of section 4509.01 of the Revised Code, for owners or operators of the motor vehicles specifically identified in the policy of insurance." R.C. 3937.18(L)(1). In turn, R.C. 4509.01(K), defined proof of financial responsibility as: "pro
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|