 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Piergallini v. Brister6/11/2002
eadings is insufficient. Civ.R. 56(E). So, too, is her resting on mere conjecture or speculation, as the non-movant must do more than present some "metaphysical doubt" as to the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Corp. (1986), 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 138.
. Mrs. Piergallini has no way of establishing the existence or, more importantly, the terms of the 1995 contract, in order to possibly avail herself of R.C. 3937.18 and obtain coverage by operation of law. As she has failed to meet the requisite burden to survive summary judgment, the trial court did not err by dismissing her claim against Brister. There was no genuine issue of the material fact central to this case. The policy in force at the time Brister struck Mr. Pergallini, provided Mrs. Pergallini's derivative consortium claim was subject to the same per person limit covering Mr. Pergallini's personal injuries.
. For the foregoing reasons, the Pergallinis' assignments of error are meritless. The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Donofrio, J., concurs.
Waite, J., concurs.
|