 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Carriage Co.11/7/1994
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company ("State Automobile") appeals from the judgment of the trial court which determined that intervening plaintiff Margaret A. Toole, Administrator of the Estate of Edward J. Bartunes(the "Administrator"), is entitled to uninsured motorists coverage in connection with the death of her decedent. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse that determination.
The record reveals that on September 6, 1991, the decedent was operating his motor vehicle eastbound on Superior Avenue in Cleveland, and was struck by a horse which had broken away from a carriage owned by Cleveland Carriage Company. The decedent later died from injuries which he sustained in this collision. Pursuant to the medical payments coverage provision of the policy it had issued to the decedent, State Automobile paid the estate $10,447.88. It is undisputed that Cleveland Carriage did not possess any liability insurance.
On March 23, 1993, State Automobile filed this action against Cleveland Carriage Company, and its agent Jerri Lawrence ("Carriage") in order to obtain reimbursement of the sums which it paid to the decedent's estate. On July 20, 1993, the Administrator moved to intervene in the action and asserted a complaint against State Automobile for uninsured motorists coverage. The trial court subsequently granted the Administrator's motion to intervene, and on November 18, 1993 the Administrator moved for summary judgment, claiming that she was entitled to uninsured motorists coverage pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Alexander (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 397, 583 N.E.2d 309. In opposition, State Automobile maintained that State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Alexander, supra, was inapposite since the holding of that case is that household exclusionary clauses or intrafamilial exclusionary clauses are unenforceable pursuant to R.C. 3937.18. State Automobile further maintained that coverage was not authorized since the decedent's fatal collision involved a horse which had broken away from a motorless carriage and did not involve an uninsured motor vehicle. The trial court subsequently granted the Administrator's motion for summary judgment and certified that there is no just reason for delay. State Automobile now appeals, assigning a single error for our review.
State Automobile's assignment of error states:
"The court below erred in its application of State Farm v. Alexander (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 397, in granting summary judgment to intervening plaintiff/appellee, and granting uninsured motorists coverage to intervening plaintiff/appellee where none exists."
Pursuant to R.C. 3937.18(A)(1), uninsured motorist coverage is mandated for the protection of insureds "who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury , sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom[.]" (Emphasis added.)
This statute expressly states that it is applicable to motor vehicles, Horsely v. United Ohio Ins. Co. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 44, 45, 567 N.E.2d 1004, 1005, and it is well settled that the purpose of the statute is to protect insured motorists, under their own policy, from the effects of personal injury resulting from another motorist who carries no insurance. Globe Am. Cas. Co. v. Goodman (1974), 41 Ohio App.2d 231, 236, 70 O.O.2d 447, 449, 325 N.E.2d 257, 261. See, also, Rowe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 1, 4, 583 N.E.2d 381, 383.
Pursuant to the mandate of R.C. 3937.18, any contractual restrictions on uninsured motor
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|