 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sarmiento v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.10/26/2005
A two-year contractual limitation period for filing uninsured- and underinsured-motorist claims is reasonable and enforceable, regardless of whether the foreign state in which the accident occurred provides a longer statute of limitations for the underlying tort claim - R.C. 2305.16 does not toll the limitation period in an insurance contract for persons who are minors at the time the cause of action accrues.
Submitted March 2, 2005
{ } One issue before us is whether a two-year contractual limitation period for filing uninsured- and underinsured-motorist ("UM/UIM") claims is reasonable and enforceable when the underlying tort claim is governed by the laws of another state, whose statute of limitations for the claim is longer than two years. Appellants and cross-appellees, David Camacho, David Camacho III (a minor), Francisco Sarmiento, Rita Sarmiento, Braulio Sarmiento (a minor), Jesus Sarmiento, and Delores Sarmiento (collectively, "Sarmientos"), urge us to interpret former R.C. 3937.18 as requiring insurers to afford the same amount of time to bring a claim for UM/UIM coverage as the claimant is afforded under the applicable tort law to bring a suit against the tortfeasor.
{ } The second issue, which is raised in the cross-appeal of appellee and cross-appellant, Grange Mutual Casualty Company ("Grange"), is whether an insured who is a minor is bound by the terms and conditions of an insurance policy, including a two-year contractual limitation period for commencing a UM/UIM claim, or whether R.C. 2305.16 applies to toll the limitations provision during the period of minority.
{ } Appellant and cross-appellee David Camacho was driving a pickup truck owned by Maria Sarmiento when it was struck by a motor vehicle driven by an allegedly uninsured motorist in New Mexico on November 5, 1998. The six other appellants and cross-appellees were passengers in the truck.
{ } Grange had issued a policy of insurance on the truck to Maria Sarmiento that included UM/UIM coverage in effect on the date of the accident. On November 5, 2001, the Sarmientos filed a complaint in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, seeking UM coverage under the Grange policy issued to Maria Sarmiento. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Grange. The court concluded that Grange was not obligated to provide UM coverage, because the plaintiffs had not filed suit within two years from the date of the accident as required by the insurance policy.
{ } On appeal, the Sarmientos argued that Grange's two-year limitation period was unreasonable and unenforceable because it was shorter than New Mexico's three-year statute of limitations for personal injuries, which was applicable in the underlying tort claim. They also argued that even if the two-year limitation period was enforceable, it was tolled as to the claims of the two minors.
{ } The court of appeals concluded that the rights and duties under the Grange policy should be determined by the laws of Ohio, not New Mexico. Applying Ohio law, the appellate court agreed that Grange's two-year limitation period was reasonable and enforceable, and the court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on that issue. However, the appellate court concluded that Ohio's tolling statute, R.C. 2305.16, applied to the UM claims of the two minors. Therefore, as to the minors, David Camacho III and Braulio Sarmiento, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for further proceedings.
{ } This cause is before this court upon our acceptance of a discretionary appeal and cross-appeal.
{ } An insurance policy is a contract, and the relationship a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|