 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Overton v. Western Reserve Group12/8/1999
d:
a) Not owned by an "insured"; or
b) Owned by an "insured" and on an "insured location";
3) A motorized golf cart when used to play golf on a golf course;
4) A vehicle or conveyance not subject to motor vehicle registration which is:
a) Used to service an "insured's" residence;
b) Designed for assisting the handicapped; or
c) In dead storage on an "insured location[.]
The Supreme Court has recently concluded that " here motor vehicle liability coverage is provided, even in limited form, uninsured/underinsured coverage must be provided." Selander v. Erie Ins. Group (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 541, 544. In Selander, the insured held a "General Business Liability Policy," the terms of which provided coverage for "all sums which anyone we protect becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of personal injury or property damage" arising out of specified maintenance or use of hired or non-owned automobiles. Id. at 543.
The policy specifically covered only (1) automobiles leased, hired, or borrowed, and (2) any automobiles used in connection with the business that were not owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the insured. Id.
The insured conceded that "automobile liability coverage was intended in limited circumstances" pursuant to the policy. Id. at 546. This coverage was sufficient to transform the general business liability policy into an automobile liability policy for the purposes of R.C. 3937.18. Id. at 544-45.
In this case, however, there is no direct liability coverage, even in a limited sense, for motor vehicles. The policy provision above specifically excludes coverage for bodily injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles. While the exclusion described does apply to specific conveyances such as recreational off-road conveyances and golf carts, this incidental coverage is simply not enough to transform a homeowner's policy into an automobile liability policy.
A homeowner's policy such as the policy at issue in this case cannot be reasonably construed to provide uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage where there is no automobile liability coverage intended by the parties or contained within the policy. "Common sense alone dictates that this [would be] an extension of coverage that the parties did not contemplate, bargain for, rate, or purchase." Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 670 (Resnick, J., Dissenting). Accordingly, we hold that the policy in question was not an automobile liability policy for purposes of R.C. 3937.18. As such, UM/UIM coverage was not required and does not operate by law.
Appellants' assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Wayne, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E).
Costs taxed to Appellants.
Exceptions.
LYNN C. SLABY, FOR THE COURT
BAIRD, P.J. CARR, J. CONCUR
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.
|
|