 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Medical Protective Co. v. Watson3/29/2005
o no risk because its insurance policies shifted the responsibility for its lack of good faith to its insureds.
{ } Because, on these facts, enforcement of MPC's policy language leads to a result that directly contravenes the policy set forth in Gunckle, the language of the policies limiting MPC's liability to $4 million, including prejudgment interest, is unenforceable as against public policy. See, e.g., Berrios v. State Farm Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 109, 2002-Ohio-7115 (holding that a contractual term allowing for a deduction of medical payments paid under another clause violated the public policy underlying the statute providing for uninsured and underinsured coverage and thus was unenforceable). MPC cannot avoid the consequences of its own behavior by inserting language into its insurance policies that flouts the public policy underlying the award of prejudgment interest. Applying the rationale of both Lovewell and Gunckle to the facts of this case, we conclude, as did the trial court, that MPC properly must pay the prejudgment interest awarded in Watson's action against Dr. Cahill and OSO.
{ } For the foregoing reasons, MPC's single assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
SADLER and DESHLER, JJ., concur.
DESHLER, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
|