 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mahoney v. Westfield Ins. Co.12/30/1997
Westfield on the coverage limits. In contrast, the appeal presently before the court is exclusively concerned with the trial court's decision to release the interpleaded funds in their entirety to Mary Mahoney individually. Westfield has timely appealed from that decision and brings the following assignment of error:
"The trial court erred and abused its discretion in releasing interpleader funds solely to appellee, Mary Mahoney."
Westfield argues that it has an ongoing interest in the distribution of interpleaded funds due to the pending coverage limit issues, and thus had standing both to intervene in the court's distribution of the funds below and to pursue this appeal from the trial court's decision. Westfield's objection to the court's distribution of the entire interpleaded amount to Mary Mahoney, regardless of the value of her personal injury claim, is that this exposes Westfield to payment of more than would be due under the policy, if the trial court's determination of coverage limits were reversed upon appeal. Westfield contends, and we accept for purposes of illustration, that the value of Mary Mahoney's claim is significantly less than $300,000. If the $600,000 policy limit, twice $300,000, were found applicable in this case based on two premiums paid on the two vehicles, Westfield would nominally be exposed, considering each claimant's personal injury separately, to the extent of $300,000 for Timothy Mahoney, whose injuries are likely in excess of that amount, plus some lesser amount, for example $50,000, for Mary Mahoney's injuries, for a total disbursement of $350,000.
Because the entire interpleader amount of $300,000 has been disbursed to Mary Mahoney, however, the potential exposure for Westfield increases dramatically in case of an eventual reversal by the Ohio Supreme Court and remand to the trial court with instructions to find two independent, $300,000 UM/UIsmotorist coverages under the policy. Westfield would then be liable for a further $300,000 claim for Timothy Mahoney's injuries, Mr. Mahoney not having received any compensation from the interpleaded funds. Westfield would accordingly seek to have the trial court release the funds jointly to Mary and Timothy Mahoney, thus limiting the insurer's exposure should the higher coverage limit be found to apply.
Interpleader in Ohio in governed by Civ.R. 22, which provides as follows:
"Persons having claims against the plaintiff may be joined as defendants and required to interplead when their claims are such that the plaintiff is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability. It is not ground for objection to the joinder that the claims of the several claimants or the titles on which their claims depend do not have a common origin or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another, or that the plaintiff avers that he is not liable in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants. A defendant exposed to similar liability may obtain such interpleader by way of cross-claim or counterclaim. The provisions of this rule supplement and do not in any way limit the joinder of parties permitted in Rule 20.
"In such an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party may deposit all or any part of such sum or thing with the court upon notice to every other party and leave of court. The court may make an order for the safekeeping, payment or disposition of such sum or thing."
Plaintiffs assert that, once funds are interpleaded with the court, the stakeholder interpleading the funds relinquishes any right to contr
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.
|
|