 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griewahn v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.3/28/2005
ten in addition to a primary policy to protect the insured against liability for catastrophic losses that would exceed the limits of affordable primary coverage. Like many excess policies, umbrella policies are written to stand alone. An umbrella policy differs from an excess policy in a critical aspect: an umbrella policy typically insures against certain risks that a concurrent primary policy does not cover. An umbrella policy is thus a "gap filler"; by design, it provides first dollar liability coverage where a primary policy and an excess policy do not. For example, an umbrella policy may insure against "personal injury" when a primary policy only insures against "bodily injury" and "property damage." By essentially dropping down to provide primary coverage or by filling a gap in primary coverage, an umbrella policy broadens the insured's primary coverage where an excess policy does not. The terms "excess policy" and "umbrella policy" are not synonymous.' (Footnotes omitted.)" Tscherne v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 8th Dist. No. 81620, 2003-Ohio-6158, -24, quoting Richmond, Rights and Responsibilities of Excess Insurers (2000), 78 Denv.U.L.Rev. 29, 29-31.
{ } The policy in this case does not fill the gaps in the manner describe by Tscherne. Thus, it is neither an umbrella policy nor an "automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance" as that term is described in former R.C. 3937.18(L)(2).
{ } The USF&G policy with Rural Metro at issue in this case does not fit the statutory definition of "automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance" contained in former R.C. 3937.18(L). Thus, the statutory mandates do not apply to this insurance contract. The trial court erred when it found to the contrary. USF&G's assignment of error is meritorious.
{ } Because we conclude that the trial court erred because the insurance policy is not an "automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance," we do not need to address USF&G's secondary argument. This policy is neither an umbrella insurance policy nor a policy that serves as proof of financial responsibility. Thus, it is not subject to the mandates of R.C. 3937.18. The trial court came to an incorrect conclusion because it applied the wrong version of the statute.
{ } Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and judgment is granted to USF&G. It was not obligated to offer underinsured motorist coverage and its duties under its excess policy with Rural Metro are only those duties specifically set forth in the contract.
Judgment reversed.
DONOFRIO, P.J., and VUKOVICH, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|