 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. Nationwide Insurance Co.11/20/1997
ted Amended Substitute Senate Bill Number 20 which invalidated Savoie, supra, and negated the holding in Sexton, supra. See, also, State ex rel. Governor v. Taft (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 1. *
1. In accordance with the General Assembly's clarification of R.C 3937.18(A), we can now hold that an insurance policy exclusion which limits uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage to bodily injury or death sustained by an insured does not violate R.C 3937.18(A). Moreover, we believe today's decision comports with the rule set forth in Martin v. Midwestern Group Ins. Co. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 478 which held he validity of an insurance policy exclusion of uninsured coverage depends on whether it conforms to R.C 3937.18. Id. at 480.
The decisions in Beagle v. Walden, supra, and Kocel are dispositive of appellant's argument in this assignment of error.
Moreover, appellants' attempt to circumvent the application of those cases to their action for declaratory judgment by relying upon the definitional language of the policies is unavailing. The identical policy language cited by appellants as ambiguous was deemed clear in Nationwide v. Wright (June 5, 1996), Lorain App. No.95CA006190, unreported; therein, appellants argument was summarily rejected. This court agrees with the analysis set forth in Wright.
Read in context, the definitional language of bodily injury includes the phase of any person merely to clarify that protection extends only to human beings rather than to other living things. No further construction of the phrase is necessary. Hybud Equip Corp. v. Sphere-Drake Ins. Co (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 657, 665; cf., Knowlton v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 419. Appellant's argument, moreover, would render the policy's definition of relative meaningless.
Since the policies at issue require the bodily injury to be suffered by one specifically insured or a resident relative, and appellants met neither the first requirement nor the second, the trial court's action was appropriate. The trial court properly determined no genuine issue of material fact remained and Nationwide was entitled to summary judgment on appellants' claims. Kocel v. Farmer's Insurance of Columbus, Inc., supra; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Wright, supra; Harris v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 399.
Accordingly, appellants' first assignment of error is also overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellants its 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 Cuyahoga County 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, J., CONCUR; DIANE KARPINSKI, P.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY
JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|