 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Waite v. Progressive Ins. Co.6/12/1998
SHERCK, Judge.
This appeal comes to us from a judgment issued by the Huron County Court of Common Pleas in a declaratory judgment action regarding claims for underinsured motorist coverage. Because we conclude that appellee was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.
The following facts are undisputed. On August 25, 1995, Alex Waite, the minor son of appellants, John and Diane Waite, died as the result of an automobile accident. The accident was caused by the negligent operation of an insured motorist who had liability coverage limitations of $12,500 per person/$25,000 per accident. The tortfeasor's insurance company offered to pay appellants the pesaccident maximum amount of $25,000 in settlement of all claims against their insured.
Appellants carried an automobile insurance policy with appellee, Progressive Insurance Company, which provided underinsured motorist coverage limits of $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident with setoff provisions. When appellee refused to pay appellants' claim for $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage, appellants brought a declaratory judgment action in the Huron County Court of Common Pleas. Appellants claimed that R.C. 3937.18, as amended by Am.Sub. S.B. No. 20, is unconstitutional. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. The court concluded that Beagle v. Walden (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 59, 676 N.E.2d 506, was dispositive of the issue raised. The trial court found that the coverage available to appellants under their underinsured motorist policy issued by appellee to be $50,000 minus a setoff of $25,000 as paid by the tortfeasor's insurance company.
Appellants now appeal that decision, setting forth the following two assignments of error:
"Assignment of Error No. 1:
"The trial court erred in not holding that S.B. 20 is unconstitutional on grounds other than violation of the `one subject rule.'
"Assignment of Error No. 2:
"The trial court erred in holding that, while appellants could only recover the per person limit of underinsured motorists coverage, appellee was entitled to a setoff for the per occurrence limit of the tortfeasor's liability coverage."
Appellants are essentially arguing that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. When reviewing the grant of summary judgment, this court must apply the same standard as the trial court. Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts. (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 129, 572 N.E.2d 198, 199-200. Summary judgment will be granted when there remains no genuine issue of material fact and, when construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can only conclude that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ.R. 56(C). Since the facts are undisputed, our review is limited only to whether appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Appellants, in their first assignment of error, contend that the trial court erred in failing to find R.C. 3937.18, as amended by Am.Sub.S.B. No. 20,
unconstitutional on grounds other than the "one subject rule." Appellants argue specifically that Am.Sub.S.B. No. 20 violates the following constitutional provisions: limits on the amount of damages (Section 19a, Article I, Ohio Constitution); separation-of-power doctrine (Section 1, Article IV, Ohio Constitution); special privileges and immunities (Section 2, Article 1, Ohio Constitution); and equal protection. Appellants claim that these constitutional issues were not decided by Beagle v. Walden, supra.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|