 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sandford v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.6/30/2005
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
{ } Defendant-appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from the October 28, 2004, Judgment Entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee Sandra Sanford and denying the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant-appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{ } On February 1, 2002, Dustin Sanford was killed in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, appellee Sandra Sanford and her husband had custody of Dustin, who was their grandson. Dustin was residing with them at the time of his death.
{ } As of February 1, 2002, the date of the accident, appellee Sandra Sanford and her husband were insureds under an automobile insurance policy issued by appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company with uninsured/underinsured [hereinafter "UM/UIM"] limits of $100,000.00 per person and $300,000.00 per accident.
{ } In addition, at the time of the accident, the tortfeasor was insured under an automobile insurance policy with Nationwide Insurance Company with liability limits of $300,000.00 per person and $300,000.00 per occurrence. The Estate of Dustin Sanford reached a settlement with Nationwide in the amount of $100,000.00. Appellee Sandra Sanford and her husband divided the wrongful death proceeds equally, so each received $50,000.00.
{ } Subsequently, appellee and her husband sought UIM benefits under their State Farm automobile insurance policy. After appellant State Farm denied coverage, appellee, both individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Dustin Sanford, and her husband, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against appellant State Farm on February 2, 2004, alleging that they were entitled to recover UIM benefits under their State Farm policy.
{ } On August 30, 2004, appellee's husband voluntarily dismissed his claims against State Farm without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1).
{ } Both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment. While appellee, in her motion, asserted that she was entitled to UM/UIM coverage in the amount of $50,000.00, or the difference between her State Farm automobile policy limits of $100,000.00 and the $50,000.00 that she personally had received from Nationwide Insurance, appellant State Farm argued that it was entitled to set-off the $100,000.00 that appellant and her husband, the wrongful death beneficiaries, received from Nationwide against the $100,000.00 limits under the State Farm policy. Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on October 28, 2004, the trial court granted appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment while denying that filed by appellant State Farm. The trial court, in its entry, stated, in relevant part, as follows:
{ } "As stated above, Plaintiff claims that she is entitled to UM/UIM coverage in the amount of $50,000.00. State Farm argues that it is entitled to setoff the amount available for payment to Plaintiff as a wrongful death beneficiary.
{ } "The Court finds that Plaintiff's claim is confined to the single, per-person limit.
{ } "The Court next finds the arguments of Plaintiff to be well taken based on the holdings of Kotlarczyk v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 6th Dist. No. L-03-1103, 2004-Ohio-3447, Littrell v. Wigglesworth (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 425, 746 N.E.2d 1077, and Wallace v. Balint (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 182, 761 N.E.2d 598. The Court finds that if Dustin had been killed by an uninsured motorist, Plaintiff could have collected up to the $100,000 per-person limit in the uninsured motorist coverage available u
Page 1 2 3 4 5 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
|