 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GRE Insurance Group v. Normandy Pointe Associates3/8/2002
{ } GRE Insurance Group (hereinafter "GRE") is appealing the judgment of the trial court, which adopted the opinion of the magistrate overruling GRE's motion for summary judgment and sustaining Normandy Pointe Associates' (hereinafter "Normandy") motion for summary judgment.
{ } Certain homeowners in Hidden Creek Subdivision in Washington Township, Montgomery County, Ohio, brought a lawsuit against Normandy and others concerning the 100 year flood plain in relation to the subdivision. Normandy is a general partnership engaged in the business of developing and marketing home sites. Normandy acquired the real estate in question in 1989 with the intention of developing a planned residential community. Normandy then contracted with Woolpert Consultants (hereinafter "Woolpert") to provide professional "engineering and related professional services in a wide variety of engineering, design, platting, development/governmental approvals, FEMA/Flood line demarcation, and other services required to develop Hidden Creek." Complaint 12. Also, Normandy contracted with Bassett Associates (hereinafter "Bassett") to provide landscaping services for the project. The homeowners alleged in their complaint that Normandy, along with Woolpert and Bassett, warranted that the Hidden Creek development was not in the 100 year flood plain, when Normandy knew or should have known that the homeowners' lots were within the 100 year flood plain. The homeowners alleged in their complaint that Woolpert and Bassett were agents of Normandy.
{ } GRE had issued a commercial general liability coverage policy to Normandy beginning on November 5, 1995 and terminating on November 5, 1996. Relying on the policy, Normandy requested that GRE defend and indemnify Normandy against all losses or judgments arising out of the plaintiff homeowners' claims. GRE refused to defend Normandy on the basis that the policy did not cover the losses and claims asserted against Normandy. GRE then brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that they did not have to defend and indemnify Normandy. The matter was referred to a magistrate, and both GRE and Normandy filed motions for summary judgment. On January 3, 2000, the magistrate rendered its decision sustaining Normandy's motion for summary judgment and overruling GRE's motion for summary judgment. GRE filed objections to the magistrate's decision with the trial court. On July 20, 2001, the trial court entered its judgment overruling GRE's objections and adopting the magistrate's opinion. GRE has filed this appeal from the trial court's decision.
{ } Appellant raises the following assignment of error:
{ } THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO APPELLEES AND DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO APPELLANT BY OVERRULING APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
{ } An appellate court reviews a judgment granting summary judgment with a de novo standard. Coventry Twp. v. Echer (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 38, 41; Koos v. Cent. Ohio Cellular, Inc. (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 579, 588. Summary judgment is proper when "(1) o genuine issue as to any material fact remains 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, 327, 4 O.O.3d 466. Summary judgment may be issued in an action where declaratory relief
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.
|
|