 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mlecik v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus11/14/2002
. Plaintiff-appellant Michael D. Mlecik, administrator of the estate of Michael R. Mlecik, appeals from the trial court order that granted summary judgment to defendant-appellee/cross-appellant Steadfast Insurance Company.
. Appellant argues the trial court incorrectly concluded his decedent was not an insured under Steadfast's commercial general liability ("CGL") policy issued to his son's employer. In Steadfast's cross-appeal, it contends the trial court incorrectly concluded the CGL policy applied to automobiles. This court has reviewed the policy in light of the relevant case law, and concludes the trial court's analysis of both issues was appropriate. Consequently, the trial court's decision is affirmed.
. The facts in this case are not in dispute. Appellant's son was killed by an uninsured hit-skip driver on the night of July 13, 1995. At the time of his death, appellant's son had been driving home from his place of employment, Tiffany's Cabaret. Tiffany's Cabaret was insured under a CGL policy issued by Steadfast.
. After obtaining the liability limit of $100,000 from their own automobile insurer, appellant and his wife obtained a money judgment against the uninsured driver responsible for the accident. Appellant and his wife also received an amount of money from their homeowner's insurance company. Subsequently, in the year 2000, appellant submitted a claim to Steadfast based upon his son's employment with Tiffany's Cabaret.
. The policy Steadfast had issued to Tiffany's Cabaret contained a provision stating Steadfast would "pay on behalf of the named insured the ultimate net loss...which the named insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of personal injury *." The insureds named in the policy were nine corporate entities and four specific individuals. An additional endorsement amended the "Persons Insured" provisions of the policy to include the following:
. "(e) with respect to the operation, for the purpose of locomotion upon a public highway, of mobile equipment registered under any motor vehicle registration law,
. "(1) any employee of the named insured while operating any such equipment in the course of his or her employment or while performing services related to the conduct of the named insured's business; *." (Bold in original; Underscoring added.)
. Steadfast refused to pay appellant's claim; therefore, appellant instituted this action seeking a declaratory judgment that he was entitled to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from Steadfast. The parties eventually filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Ultimately, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting Steadfast's motion for summary judgment on appellant's claim but denying appellant's motion. The trial court held that although the insurance policy was subject to R.C. 3937.18, the decedent was not an "insured" as that term was defined in the policy.
. Appellant filed an appeal from the trial court's decision. Steadfast thereafter filed a cross-appeal; its assignment of error first is addressed as follows:
. "The trial court erred in finding that the Steadfast Insurance Company general liability policy issued to Tiffany's Cabaret is an automobile liability policy subject to O.R.C. ยง3937.18."
. Steadfast urges this court to overturn that part of the trial court's decision that determined the CGL policy issued to the decedent's employer constituted an automobile liability insurance policy pursuant to the version of R.C. 3937.18 in effect in July, 1995. This court declines to do so.
. In reviewing the granting of a motion for summary ju
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.
|
|