 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chiropractic Clinic of Solon12/10/1998
under your Liability Coverages becomes liable as a result of bodily injury or property damage that is caused by an accident. *
Appellant specifically relies on the section of the policy which provides:
Personal Damages. We will pay any amounts, up to your Limit of Coverage, for which you or anyone else covered under your Liability Coverages becomes liable as a result of any of the following offense committed in the course of your business and while the policy is in effect:
the false arrest, detention or imprisonment of anyone. malicious prosecution. oral or written publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services, unless the libel, slander or disparagement was made in the course of your advertising, broadcasting, publishing or telecasting activities.
Appellant argues that the Kutsko counterclaim encompasses inappropriate conduct on the part of appellant in its establishment of the debt and its filing of a suit to collect the debt and, as such, amounts to a claim of abuse of process and is covered within the coverage of a claim of malicious prosecution. Moreover, appellant asserts that the scope of the allegation in the counterclaim is one made by Kutsko for libel and slander on the part of appellant for creating inaccurate credit reports against him. We reject appellant's characterization of the counterclaim and reassert that, as we determined above, the Kutsko counterclaim, whether artfully or inartfully drafted, set forth only a single claim for damages, that claim brought pursuant to the Consumer Sales Practices Act as set forth in R.C. 1345.01 et seq.
A violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act does not constitute a claim for either bodily injury or property damage. Moreover, the Kutsko counterclaim fails to comport with the requirements for asserting a claim of malicious civil prosecution. Finally, we find the counterclaim fails to comport with the requirements for asserting a claim for defamation encompassing either libel and/or slander. Thus, we conclude that the allegations of the Kutsko counterclaim are outside the scope of coverage of the Buckeye/Continental insurance policy. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly determined that the policy of appellee Buckeye/Continental does not require a defense of the allegations contained in the Kutsko counterclaim. Appellant's third and fourth assignments of error are without merit.
Further, because appellee Buckeye/Continental had reasonable justificationto deny defense of the counterclaim, we find that no issue of fact remains on appellant's claim of bad faith against Buckeye/Continental and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in its favor. Accordingly, we find appellant's sixth assigned error to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE PRESIDING JUDGE
PATTON, J. and SPELLACY, J., CONCUR.
|