 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mahoney v. Westfield Ins. Co.12/30/1997
DESHLER, Judge.
Defendant-appellant, Westfield Insurance Company ("Westfield"), appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas releasing certaisinterpleaded funds in the amount of $305,836.86 plus interest to plaintiff-appellee, Mary Mahoney.
Plaintiffs in the action underlying this appeal, Timothy and Mary Mahoney, husband and wife, were both injured in an automobile collision caused by the negligence of an underinsured motorist. At the time of the accident, plaintiffs were covered by an automobile insurance policy issued by Westfield which included underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage ("UM/UIM").
Plaintiffs owned three automobiles that were insured under the policy; the declarations page of the policy indicates that two vehicles were covered by UM/UIM provisions, for which plaintiffs paid separate annual premiums for each of the two cars. The third vehicle owned by plaintiffs was not listed on the declaration page as covered by underinsured motorist insurance, and no premium was paid for it.
After accepting the tortfeasor's limit of liability insurance coverage, plaintiffs attempted to make separate underinsured motorist claims for their respective personal injuries under what they asserted were two separate underinsured motorist coverages listed on the declaration page of their policy with Westfield, one for each covered vehicle. The plaintiffs' individual claims were each based solely upon their own injuries and did not include any damages arising out of the other's injuries. Westfield partly denied the plaintiffs' claims, relying on language in the policy which limited recovery to $300,000 per accident regardless of the number of vehicles or persons insured on the declaration page.
Plaintiffs brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that they were entitled to two separate and distinct underinsured motorist coverages with a separate per accident limit of $300,000. Conceding that it was liable for, at a minimum, the $300,000 per accident global limitation under the policy, Westfield voluntarily interpleaded the sum of $305,836.86 with the Franklin County Common Pleas Clerk on November 26, 1996. The issue of the extent of coverages was then decided on cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court rendering a decision on March 21, 1997, in favor of Westfield, finding that plaintiffs were limited to a maximum recovery under the policy of $300,000 for their combined injuries.
Subsequent to the trial court's decision on the policy limits issue, plaintiffs filed a motion to have the interpleader funds released solely to Mary Mahoney. Westfield opposed this motion on the grounds that Mary Mahoney's injuries and provable damages, although never established in court due to the nature of the proceedings, were less than $300,000, and releasing all the funds to Mary Mahoney would expose Westfield to paying the plaintiffs more money than they were due under the policy, should the trial court's decision with respect to coverage limits be reversed upon appeal. The trial court nonetheless grantesplaintiffs' motion to release the entire interpleaded funds to Mary Mahoney, by order entered on March 12, 1997.
Two issues have thus arisen out of this case and have given rise to two separate appeals before this court. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's determination in the declaratory judgment action that their limit of coverage under the policy was $300,000. That matter was considered by this court in the case of Mahoney v. Westfield Ins. Co. (Dec. 18, 1997), Franklin App. No. 97APE05-651, unreported, 1997 WL 781898 ("Westfield I"), wherein we held in favor of
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.
|
|