 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chace v. Dorcy Internatl.3/4/1991
ed in the absence of a choice by the parties. See, e.g., Schulke Radio Productions, Ltd. v. Midwestern Broadcasting Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 436, 6 OBR 480, 453 N.E.2d 683.
After determining Ohio law controls, defense presents the following issue for resolution: In which currency should the dollars awarded to plaintiffs be paid, i.e., Canadian or American. It is uncontested that plaintiff-vendors herein have sustained liability to Chace in excess of $2,000,000. These are American dollars.
As we previously stated, ambiguities in a contract which are subject to more than one interpretation will be strictly construed against the insurer, who drafts the contract and has the better opportunity to correct such conflicts. See Burris v. Grange, supra; Faruque, supra.
The judgment entered by the trial court of one million American dollars is a perfectly logical outcome since the Chace settlement set forth over two million in American dollars. Payments are being made to plaintiffs in American currency. Furthermore, the contract of insurance could easily have been drafted to state the currency which applied, e.g., Canadian or American. The general rule in deciding which currency to use when honoring an obligation in currency which bears the same name but has different values seems to be that payment is made in the currency of the country where payment is due. Liebeskind v. Mexican Light & Power Co. (C.A. 2, 1941), 11sF.2d 971; Mountain Lumber Co. v. Davis (S.D.N.Y.1925), 9 F.2d 478. The Chace claim is due and presently being paid in American dollars.
Since Kansa, a Finnish company, knew the vendor's clause would logically apply to distributors and sellers both nationally and internationally, within and outside Canada, the contract is construed strictly against Kansa. Thus, the trial court did not err in holding payment was due plaintiff-vendors in American dollars.
Accordingly, defendant-appellant's seventh and eighth assignments of error are not well taken and overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
PARRINO, J., concurs.
MATIA, J., concurs in judgment only.
THOMAS J. PARRINO, J., retired, of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|