 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Luckenbill v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance Co.8/31/2001
OPINION Rendered on the 31st day of August, 2001.
In this case, Daniel Luckenbill, Sr., appeals individually, and as administrator of the estate of Hilda Luckenbill, from a decision granting summary judgment to Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company (Hamilton). Mr. Luckenbill is the decedent's spouse and is a named insured on the Hamilton policy. Additional Appellants are Robert Arnold, Terry Arnold, Diane Arnold, Vicki Arnold, and Jacquie Kemp (Mrs. Luckenbill's five surviving adult children), plus numerous "John and Jane Does," who represent other potential wrongful death beneficiaries.
The Appellants (Plaintiffs below) raise the following assignments of error:
I. The trial court failed to properly apply the holding of the Second Appellate District in the Estate of Isabel Fox et al., v. Auto Owners Insurance, et al., and the holdings of the Ohio Supreme Court in Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Andrews and Derr v. Westfield Companies.
II. The trial court erred in its application of the decision of the Second District Appellate Court in Horstman v. Cincinnati Insurance Companies (1998), 1998 Ohio App., Lexis 3448.
III. The trial court erred in its interpretation and application of Ohio Revised Code Section 3937.18(A)(2).
IV. The trial court erred in finding that the decedent's children were not insureds under the subject Hamilton Mutual Insurance Policy.
I.
All four assignments of error will be addressed together, since they are related. According to the facts stipulated below, Hilda Luckenbill received fatal injuries in an automobile accident which occurred on July 18, 1997, in Darke County, Ohio. The negligent tortfeasor's insurers, State Farm Insurance and Cincinnati Insurance, each paid their $100,000 policy limits (a total of $200,000) to Daniel Luckenbill as administrator of Hilda's estate. That sum was then distributed, by order of the Darke County probate court, as follows: $114,834.08 to Daniel as surviving spouse, $5,000 to each adult child, $60,000 for attorney fees, and $165.92 to the attorneys for costs. All beneficiaries agreed on the distribution.
Hamilton was not a party to the probate proceedings and did not take part in deciding how the settlement would be distributed. However, Hamilton was notified of the proposed settlement and the time and place of the hearing to approve the settlement. The parties have also stipulated that the damages arising from Mrs. Luckenbill's death exceeded $300,000.
At the time of the accident, Hamilton insured the Luckenbills and their automobiles. The policy had a single limit maximum of $100,000, and the policy period was from October 29, 1996, to October 29, 1997. After Hamilton rejected a claim for underinsured motorists (UIM) benefits, Daniel Luckenbill filed a complaint for declaratory judgment. Later, Mrs. Luckenbill's adult children and the John and Jane Doe statutory beneficiaries were added as Plaintiffs.
Before trial, both sides filed motions for summary judgment. Hamilton's motion was based on our prior decision in Horstman v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (June 26, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16949, unreported, and the fact that the tortfeasor's policy limits were the same as the Hamilton policy limits.
Appellants' motion for summary judgment was based on the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Andrews (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 362, and our prior decision in Estate of Fox v. Auto Owners Ins. Co. (June 12, 1998), Darke App. No. 1456, unreported. According to Appellants, under Andrews and Fox, the proper comparison in UIM cases is not between policy limits. Instead, an insured is entit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|