 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stickovich v. City of Cleveland8/2/2001
indemnity agreement, both of which were found to be enforceable despite R.C. 2305.31. Lewis [the contractor's employee] alleged that he sustained personal injuries on May 28, 1986 while employed by Corcon [the contractor] to paint an electrical substation in Lowellville, Ohio. He alleged that Corcon contracted with Ohio Edison to paint the electrical substation which was owned and operated by Ohio Edison. Id. at 2. The Court stated the facts herein are very complex and it is not so clear that there is no possibility of coverage. Id. at 4.
The Fourth District Court of Appeals construed a similar CGL additional insured endorsement to provide coverage for claims against a public agency for its own alleged negligence in Washington Cty. A. & M. Assoc. dba Washington Cty. Fair v. T.H.E. Insurance Co. (Dec. 22, 1992), Washington App. Nos. 92CA4 and 92CA13, unreported. Washington County Fair ( WCF ) contracted with an independent contractor to provide a Fourth of July fireworks display. A child was injured the day after the show when an unexploded firework he picked up from the ground detonated in his hand. Alleging negligence, the child sued WCF and the contractor.
The additional insured endorsement issued by T.H.E. Insurance Company provided coverage to WCF only as respects accidents arising out of the business operations of the primary insurer. There was some evidence that the public authority was responsible for clean up of the site after the show. The policy defined the contractor's work to include work or operations performed by you or on your behalf as in the case at bar. Contrary to Commercial Union's argument, the trial court's conclusion that the liability insurer had a duty to defend WCF and pay damages was affirmed on appeal. Id. at 4; accord, e.g., McIntosh v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (10th Cir. 1993), 992 F.2d 251.
Commercial Union's additional insured endorsement in the case at bar provides coverage with respect to liability arising out of `your [ICC's] work' for that insured [Cleveland] by or for you. Inter alia, the injured worker's complaint herein alleged:
4. On December 30, 1991, the plaintiffs, Michael Stickovich and David Straight, were employed by Industrial Construction, Inc. on a job site at the Washington Street bridge in Cleveland, Ohio. The plaintiffs were assigned to rebuild the bridge pursuant to a contract with the City of Cleveland. *
5. Said crane was designed, manufactured and sold by defendant Grove North America. Said crane was leased to Industrial Construction Co., Inc. by defendant Construction Supplies.
6. During the course of guiding the metal form being lowered by the crane, the plaintiffs were severely burned by electrocution as a result of an electrical event occurring between a portion of the crane and the high voltage wires owned and maintained by defendant City of Cleveland.
Although the complaint also contained an allegation that Cleveland was negligent, id. at para. 7, the quoted allegations in other paragraphs of the complaint reveal that the claims arose out of ICC's work on the project.
The term arising out of in a liability insurance policy affords very broad coverage. This court has held that arising out of means flowing from or having its origin in. E.g., Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Turner (1986), 29 Ohio App.3d 73, 77 (holding that the shooting of a family member by an insane person fell within the homeowner's insurance coverage for injuries arising out of the use of real property. ) The term arising out of has also been defined to mean originating from, growing out of, or flowing from. E.g., Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Mut. Ins. Co. (1987), 37 Ohio A
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|