 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Waddell v. LTV Steel Co.12/3/1997
rzeczek v. Std. Oil Co. (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 209, 4 OBR 313, 447 N.E.2d 760, which held that "a provision in a construction contract requiring that the promisor obtain liability insurance naming the promises as an additional insured is not null and void due to the application of R.C. 2305.31 and is not contrary to public policy."
If it does not violate R.C. 2305.31 to make Standard Oil an additional insured on its contractor's general liability insurance policy, it follows that no violation occurs when RCR is required to supply public liability coverage in favor of LTV in form and limits satisfactory to it.
The decision of this court in Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Zavarella Bros. Constr. Co. (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 147, 699 N.E.2d 127, does not require a different result. There we agreed that "the additional insured agreement does not violate public policy, but that the express language of the policy does not afford coverage under the circumstances." Id. at 148, 699 N.E.2d at 128. This court found that the policy language as written did not provide coverage to Snavely, the general contractor, for its negligence, but only for the negligence of Zaverella, the subcontractor. Id. at 151-152, 699 N.E.2d at 130. In the instant case, the policy does not appear in the record and we do not know whether RCR fulfilled its contractual obligation to furnish public liability coverage satisfactory to LTV "as to the form and limitations." Nor do I accept the majority's conclusion that it is "irrelevant whether RCR did or did not purchase the insurance policies" because they would have covered contractual obligations found to be void in Section 12.
I note that the insurance purchase provision in Brzeczek required the contractor to obtain for Standard Oil's benefit comprehensive general liability insurance that "shall contain provisions insuring the contractual liability assumed hereunder," naming Standard Oil as an additional assured. Brzeczek is on all fours with the instant case, where RCR was also required to furnish public liability insurance "including contractual liability insurance as required to cover liabilities assumed in clause 12."
Although Brzeczek found the indemnity provisions void, as we do, it upheld the obligation to purchase insurance for the owner's benefit, relying on the last sentence of R.C. 2305.31, which encouraged the purchase of insurance. In reviewing the trial court's decision, the Brzeczek court stated as follows at 4 Ohio App.3d at 211-212, 4 OBR at 316-317, 447 N.E.2d at 763-764:
"The trial court analyzed the second sentence of R.C. 2305.31, which is as follows:
"`Nothing in this section shall prohibit any person from purchasing insurance from an insurance company authorized to do business in the tate of Ohio for his own protection or from purchasing a construction bond.'
"The court found that this sentence permits the purchase of insurance only for one's own benefit and that the purchase of insurance for another's protection would contravene the purpose of R.C. 2305.31. The trial court stated that:
"`In interpreting this second sentence, it is the Court's opinion that the only insurance contracts excepted from the statute are those purchased `from an insurance company authorized to do busieness in the state of Ohio' and purchased for one's `own protection.' Construction contracts requiring a promisor to purchase insurance for the promisee's protection against the promisee'sown negligence do not fall within this exception and are null and void under the first sentence of 2305.31.'
"We do not read R.C. 2305.31 as voiding the insurance contracts procured by Tulsa Tank, wherein Standa
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.
|
|