 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arn v. McLean2/18/2005
present case, we would have to ignore the content of the renewal certificate and policy, the written evidence of the parties' intent, and the legal changes that were effective with regard to this particular insurance contract. We are not willing to make such a leap of logic, especially when the General Assembly has made its intent so abundantly clear.
{ } The parties also refer in their briefs to an endorsement for the umbrella policy that defines an "automobile liability policy" for purposes of the underlying insurance policies that were required as a predicate for the umbrella policy. According to the McLeans, this definition is ambiguous and could be read to mean that the umbrella policy must include UM coverage if it is shown in the declarations section of the underlying automobile policy. We disagree. We find no ambiguity in the definition, which states:
{ } "When shown on the Declarations as 'REQUIRED UNDERLYING INSURANCE POLICIES', these terms are defined as follows:
{ } "a. 'AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY' means your policy which provides coverage for liability caused by the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of any land motor vehicle, trailer, or semi-trailer designed for use on public roads. The policy must include Uninsured and/or Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage if this coverage is shown on the Declarations."
{ } The clear meaning of this definition is that if the declarations page of the umbrella policy shows that the umbrella policy covers UM or UIM coverage, the underlying policy must also include such coverage. There is no ambiguity in the definition. The very nature of an umbrella policy is that it does not provide coverage for risks that are not also included in an underlying policy of insurance.
{ } By the same token, the mere fact that a particular type of risk is covered in an underlying policy does not mean that it is also covered by the umbrella policy. Instead, the declarations page of the umbrella policy and the policy contents must be consulted to see what type of coverage is provided. In this case, as we noted, the umbrella policy lists only "personal liability coverage." It says nothing about UM or UIM coverage, other than the specific statements in the supplemental declarations page and on the renewal certificate that we have already mentioned. As we noted, these statements unambiguously inform the policyholder that the umbrella policy does not provide UM/UIM coverage.
{ } Moreover, we have read the entire policy, including the declaration page, supplemental declaration page, and endorsement, and see no basis upon which any reader could conclude that the umbrella policy provides any type of UM or UIM coverage. Accordingly, the single assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.
{ } State Farm has asked for leave to file supplemental authority with our court. The case in question is Hollon v. Clary, 104 Ohio St.3d 526, 2004-Ohio-6772, 820 N.E.2d 881, which was decided after State Farm filed its brief. In Hollon, the Ohio Supreme Court held that if an insurer produces a signed rejection of UM/UIM coverage, extrinsic evidence may be used to demonstrate the elements of the offer. Id., at syllabus. Hollon involved a prior version of R.C. 3937.18 (as the law existed in 1999). It also clarified Kemper v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 98 Ohio St.3d 162, 2002-Ohio-7101, 781 N.E.2d 196, which had not fully explained whether extrinsic evidence could be used to prove a valid offer of coverage.
{ } State Farm's position in the present case is that S.B. 97 applies and that no offer or rejection of UM/UIM coverage was required. Alternatively, however, State Farm argues that if the written re
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.
|
|