 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Armentrout v. Bolden6/28/2002
nts add that the leased auto exclusion only applies to the liability coverage, not the underinsured/uninsured coverage that arises by law.
. On September 19, 1994, appellant Elizabeth leased a 1994 Toyota Corolla from Don Joseph, Inc. The lease explicitly stated that Don Joseph, Inc. would assign the lease to Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. The record contains a copy of the title to the 1994 Corolla. As of September 23, 1994, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation was the owner of the 1994 Corolla, not Don Joseph, Inc. In their memorandum in opposition to Westfield's motion for summary judgment as to Don Joseph, Inc., appellants did not address the issue of titleholder to the 1994 Corolla. See Civ.R. 56(E). The record clearly demonstrates that, at the time of the accident, the owner of the 1994 Corolla was Toyota Motor Credit Corporation. There was no connection, legal or otherwise, between appellants, the 1994 Corolla, and Don Joseph, Inc. at the time of the accident. The trial court correctly determined that appellants had no claims under the policy that Westfield issued to Don Joseph, Inc.
. Accordingly, upon conducting an independent examination of the record, viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of appellants, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion as to Westfield's motion for summary judgment pertaining to appellants' claims under the policy issued to Don Joseph, Inc. This conclusion is adverse to appellants. The trial court did not err in granting Westfield's motion for summary judgment as to Don Joseph Inc.'s policy. Appellants' third assignment of error is without merit.
. For the foregoing reasons, appellants' three assignments of error are without merit. The judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
DONALD R. FORD, P.J., ROBERT A. NADER, J., concur.
|