 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Laviena12/7/2005
the court to their motion to intervene for a complete discussion of the facts and procedural history. Consequently, appellees referred the court to also review the complaint in the tort action.
{ } When construing appellees' Civ.R. 60(B) motion in conjunction with their motion to intervene, as the trial court did, we are able to find that they asserted facts that, if believed, would constitute a meritorious defense to appellant's claim that it is not required to provide insurance coverage to Laviena. We must review the trial court's judgment for an abuse of discretion. Russo, 80 Ohio St.3d at 153. By examining the motion to intervene along with the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, we can find that appellees met the first GTE requirement. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably in granting appellees' motion.
{ } Our decision is further supported by the policy underlying Civ.R. 60(B). Civ.R. 60(B) is a remedial rule based on the premise that cases should be resolved on their merits whenever possible. WFMJ Television, Inc. v. AT & T Federal Systems CSC, 7th Dist. No. 01-CA-69, 2002-Ohio-3013, at ; Kay v. Marc Glassman, Inc. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 665 N.E.2d 1102. It is to "be liberally construed with a view for effecting a just result." State ex rel. Citizens for Responsible Taxation v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 134, 67, 616 N.E.2d 869. In this case, appellees' status as intervenors would practically be rendered moot if they were not permitted an opportunity to argue why appellant should be required to provide insurance coverage to Laviena. Since Laviena did not respond in any way or defend against the lawsuit appellant filed against him, the merits of appellant's claim regarding a duty to provide insurance coverage to Laviena have never been addressed. Thus, in the interest of effecting a just result and resolving this case on its merits, we again cannot conclude that the trial court abused is discretion in granting appellees' Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
{ } Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is without merit.
{ } For the reasons stated above, the trial court's judgment is hereby affirmed.
Vukovich, J., concurs
DeGenaro, J., concurs
|