 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Condon9/30/2005
OPINION.
{ } Defendants-appellants Thomas Condon and his company Thomas Condon Photography Ltd. ("Condon"), appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee State Farm Fire and Casualty Company on its complaint seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Condon under its business-insurance policies for federal lawsuits brought by family members of deceased persons whose remains were impermissibly manipulated and photographed by Condon in the Hamilton County Morgue. Because State Farm's policies excluded coverage for personal-injury claims arising from the willful violation of a penal statute, we affirm.
{ } Condon photographed the bodies in the morgue between August 2000 and January 2001. His convictions on eight counts of the gross abuse of a corpse, in violation of R.C. 2927.01(B), "were the result of Condon using corpses in the Hamilton County morgue as models for his photographic art without official permission or the consent of the deceased individuals' families." State v. Condon, 157 Ohio App.3d 26, 2004-Ohio-2031, 808 N.E.2d 912, at . We affirmed his convictions, see State v. Condon, 152 Ohio App.3d 629, 2003-Ohio-2335, 789 N.E.2d 696, and the Ohio Supreme Court refused to accept the case for review. See State v. Condon, 99 Ohio St.3d 1546, 2003-Ohio-4671, 795 N.E.2d 684.
{ } State Farm is currently defending Condon, under a reservation of rights, in a federal class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The federal lawsuit was brought by family members of the deceased persons whose remains were impermissibly manipulated and photographed by Condon at the morgue. The lawsuit, brought under Sections 1983 and 1985, Title 42, U.S.Code, alleges that Condon, Jonathan Tobias, M.D., and other government officials at the Hamilton County Morgue violated, and conspired to violate, the families' constitutional rights in three ways. The families claim that the federal defendants have violated their substantive due-process rights by actions that shock the conscience, by depriving them of their property rights in the remains of their loved ones, and by depriving them of their fundamental right to privacy. The federal plaintiffs allege that Condon wrongfully gained access to the morgue, where, after manipulating the bodies, he took and distributed photographs of their family members.
{ } On July 25, 2002, State Farm filed this declaratory-judgment action. State Farm moved for summary judgment and supported its motion with affidavits and attached exhibits. Condon filed a memorandum in response. In a proceeding that was not transcribed for this court, the parties agreed with the trial court to convert their arguments on the motion for summary judgment into a bench trial based on the evidence submitted in support of or in response to the motion.
{ } On August 31, 2004, the trial court issued an amended decision and entry acknowledging that it was ruling in a bench trial and granting judgment in favor of State Farm. Live testimony was not taken. The trial court declared the rights of the parties and identified numerous justifications for ruling in State Farm's favor, including its finding that "no claim asserted against Condon occurred during a State Farm Policy [covered] period."
{ } In a single assignment or error, Condon now argues that the trial court erred in entering judgment for State Farm because (1) the acts which are the basis of the federal plaintiffs' claims "occurred" while Condon was insured by State Farm; (2) the federal plaintiffs have properly raised claims for personal injury and property damage; and (3) Condon did not willfully violate a
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|