 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Overton v. Western Reserve Group12/8/1999
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following Disposition is made:
SLABY, Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants, Michael and Lori Overton, have appealed an order of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas that granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant-appellee, Western Reserve Group. This Court affirms.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. On June 11, 1997, Plaintiff-appellant Michael K. Overton was injured when his automobile was involved in an accident with another car. It was determined that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the other car, Mr. John Antonino. Appellants each settled all claims against Antonino's liability insurer for $15,000.
At the time of the collision, Appellants were insured under a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by Western Reserve Mutual Insurance Company ("Western Reserve"). The policy included uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage with limits of $50,000 and medical payments coverage with limits of $1,000. As a result, Appellants settled all claims with Western Reserve, with respect to that policy, for $35,000 under the UM/UIM portion of the policy and $1,000 under the Medical Payments provision.
Thereafter, appellants filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits under a Homeowners Insurance Policy issued by Western Reserve. The policy contained personal liability limits of $500,000 per occurrence. Western Reserve refused to pay, asserting that the Homeowners policy did not provide automobile liability coverage or uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.
Appellants filed a declaratory action seeking underinsured motorist benefits under the Homeowners policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in the Appellees' favor, concluding that the policy was not an automobile liability policy and that Appellants were not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits by operation of law. Appellants have appealed to this Court, raising one assignment of error for review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
The trial court erred to the prejudice of the [Appellant] by granting the [Appellee's] Motion for Summary Judgment and denying [Appellant's] Motion for Summary Judgment.
Appellants argue that they are entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under their Homeowners Insurance Policy by operation of law pursuant to R.C. 3937.18 which provides, in relevant part:
(A) No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless both of the following coverages are provided to persons insured under the policy for loss due to bodily injury or death suffered by such persons:
(1) Uninsured motorist coverage, which shall be in an amount of coverage equivalent to the automobile liability or motor vehicle liability coverage and shall provide protection for bodily injury or death under provisions approved by the superintendent of insurance, for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, suffered by any person insured under the policy.
*
(2) Underinsured motorist coverage, which shall be in an amount of coverage equivalent to the automobi
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.
|
|