BUILDERS TRANSPORT v. S.C. PROPERTY & CASUALTY
3/2/1992
eath, sustained by one person to a single limit of liability was a valid restriction. The two dissenters asserted Wood should be applied and the contractual restrictions in a liability policy should not be allowed to restrict the number of claims that can be made under the wrongful death statute.
Debate over Wood did not cease. In 1990, the Ohio Supreme Court again addressed the ramifications of Wood in a liability insurance context. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Phillips was a three-one-three decision of the court. The insurance policy involved was a split limits liability policy. The policy contained the following language:
The limit of liability shown in the Declarations for `each
person' for bodily injury liability is our maximum limit of
liability for all damages for bodily injury sustained by
any one person in any one auto accident. Subject to this
limit for `each person' the limit of liability shown in the
Declarations for `each accident' for bodily injury liability
is our maximum limit of liability for all damages for
bodily injury resulting from any one auto accident. (emphasis
in original)
The limit for each person was $100,000 and for each accident was $300,000.
Three members of the court decided Wood applied. They held each person entitled to recover damages under the wrongful death statute had a separate claim and such separate claims could not be made subject to the single person limit of liability in a tortfeasor's liability insurance policy. One justice concurred in the judgment but not the opinion. He Finally, three members of the court dissented with two members citing the Burris opinion and one member stating he found no ambiguity in the policy.
In its most recent opinion the Ohio Supreme Court has expressly limited the holding of Wood. The court was asked to construe the language of a liability insurance policy in a wrongful death case. The insured's automobile liability policy provided for $50,000 coverage for bodily injury occurring to each person in an accident and total liability for bodily injury arising from each accident of $100,000. Karen Rose was killed in an auto accident with the insured. The administrator of her estate brought a wrongful death action in Ohio. The issue was whether the policy limit for the accident was $50,000 or $100,000.
In a four to three decision, the court reviewed the terms of the insurance policy and limited the holding of Wood. The majority opinion stated:
e further limit the holding in Wood v. Shepard and
find it applicable only to those instances where the policy
limitations in uninsured or underinsured motorist provisions
do not track the corresponding limitation on liability
coverage, and are ambiguous on their face. Accordingly,
an automobile insurance policy may apply a single limit to
separate claims arising out of a single bodily injury ,
notwithstanding the provisions of [the wrongful death
statute], provided that such policy limitation tracks the
corresponding limitation on liability coverage, and is unambiguously
stated.
Based upon our review of the Ohio decisions, the Wood v. Shepard case does not provide clear guidance to this court in construing the concept of a "covered claim" under the statutory language in S.C. Code Ann. Section 38-31-20. The Wood case and its progeny have dealt with split limit insurance policies, either in the liability or underinsured context. The cases since Wood reflect a strong division of opinion among the justices of the Ohio Supreme Court. The latest decision places a limit on the
Page 1 2 3 4 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys