Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
Decision Date | 26 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 2000-1984 and 2001-0493.,2000-1984 and 2001-0493. |
Citation | 769 NE 2d 835,95 Ohio St.3d 512 |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Parties | GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY ET AL., APPELLEES. |
Brouse McDowell, Paul A. Rose, Frank E. Quirk and Keven D. Eiber, for appellants Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Motor Wheel Corporation, Kelly-Springfield Tire Company, Hose Couplings Manufacturing, Inc., Divested Aerospace Corporation, as successor in interest to Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Goodyear Farms, Inc., and Brad Ragan, Inc.
Choate, Hall & Stewart, Kathleen A. Burdette and A. Hugh Scott; Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Daniel P. Mascaro, Susan E. Thomas and Jordan Berns, for appellees Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Travelers Indemnity Company.
Hermann, Cahn & Schneider, Anthony J. Hartman and Hugh D. Berkson; Joseph B. Royster; Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey and Clay Phillips, for appellee Stonewall Insurance Company.
Lord, Bissell & Brook, Daniel I. Schlessinger, Hugh Griffin and Michael P. Comiskey; and Dennis Bartek, for appellees Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, and the London Market Company.
Baker, Dublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews and James F. Mathews, for appellee Atlanta International Insurance Company.
Buckley King & Bluso and James W. Barnhouse; Cohn & Baughman and Michael J. Baughman, for appellees Century Indemnity Company (individually and as successor to policies issued by Insurance Company of North America), California Union Insurance Company, and U.S. Fire Insurance Company.
Clausen, Miller, Gorman, Caffrey & Witous, P.C., Margaret J. Orbon, Edward M. Kay and Amy R. Paulus; Janik & Dorman, Steven J. Danik and Andrew J. Dorman, for appellees AIU Insurance Company, Birmingham Fire Insurance Company, Granite State Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Lexington Insurance Company, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Michael J. Balch; Roderick, Linton, L.L.P., Howard C. Walker, Jr. and Lawrence R. Bach, for appellees General Reinsurance Corporation, Old Republic Insurance Company, and Northstar Reinsurance Corporation, n.k.a. Signet Star Reinsurance Company.
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, L.L.P., and Lourdes Slater; Kimball Ann Lane and Craig Brown; Rodgers & Co., L.P.A., and Walter A. Rodgers, for appellee Westport Insurance Company (f.k.a. Puritan Insurance Company).
Rodgers & Co., L.P.A., and Walter A. Rodgers, for appellee Government Employees Insurance Company.
Bates & Carey, Robert J. Bates, Maria G. Enriquez and Monica Sullivan; Ulmer & Berne and David L. Lester, for appellees Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. (f.k.a. American Excess Insurance Company) and American Reinsurance Company.
Traub, Eglin, Lieberman & Straus, Robert P. Siegel, Meryl R. Lieberman and Stephen D. Straus; Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, L.L.P., Gary Johnson and Joseph M. Saponaro, for appellees Evanston Insurance Company and Northwestern National Insurance Company.
McNeal, Schick, Archibald & Biro Co., L.P.A., Robert D. Archibald and Brian T. Winchester; Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, Michael W. Morrison and Dale Kurth, for appellee Allstate Insurance Company, successor in interest to Northbrook Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company.
Merlo, Kanofsky & Brinkmeier, Ltd., Ross D. Roloff and Michael R. Gregg; Roderick, Linton, L.L.P., and Lawrence R. Bach, for appellees Everest Reinsurance Company (f.k.a. Prudential Reinsurance Company) and Gibraltar Casualty Company (n.k.a. Mt. McKinley Insurance Company).
Bollinger, Ruberry & Garvey, Clay Phillips and Dennis Dolan; McMahon DeGulis Hoffmann & Blumenthal and Gregory DeGulis, for appellees International Insurance Company and International Surplus Lines Insurance Company.
Chadbourne & Parke, L.L.P., and Francisco Vazquez, for appellee Bermuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
Connelly, Jackson, & Collier, L.L.P., and Steven R. Smith; Covington & Burling and Mitchell F. Dolin, urging reversal for amici curiae Babcox & Wilcox Company, B.F. Goodrich Company, Lincoln Electric Company, Millenium Chemicals, Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Oglebay Norton Company, Ohio Chemistry Technology Council, Owens Corning, PPG Industries, Inc., and Sherwin-Williams Company.
Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P., and Drew A. Carson; Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., Eugene R. Anderson and Richard P. Lewis; Law Office of Amy Bach and Amy Bach, urging reversal for amicus curiae United Policyholders.
Keener, Doucher, Curley & Patterson and Thomas Joseph Keener, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Insurance Environmental Litigation Association.
{¶ 1} In 1993, appellants, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and others (collectively "Goodyear"),1 filed this action against appellees Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and several other insurance companies (collectively the "insurers")2 seeking declaratory judgments concerning insurance claims for pollution cleanup costs at twenty-two sites. Numerous claims, defendants, and specific insurance policies were disposed of through pretrial motions. The remaining parties agreed to limit the evidence in this case to claims relating to two waste disposal sites. Those sites are the Motor Wheel Site in Lansing, Michigan, and the Army Creek Landfill in New Castle, Delaware.
{¶ 2} After Goodyear had presented its case at trial, the insurers moved for directed verdicts on various grounds. The trial court granted the directed verdicts to all defendants without providing a specific basis for its decision. The court of appeals reversed the trial court on a number of the motions for directed verdicts. No appeal has been taken from these reversals. The appellate court affirmed the trial court on the remaining motions for directed verdict. Goodyear asserts that this was error. The consolidated cases are now before this court pursuant to the allowance of discretionary appeals.
{¶ 3} At the outset, we are mindful of the standard of review for a directed verdict. According to Civ.R. 50(A)(4), a motion for directed verdict is granted if, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, "reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party." The "reasonable minds" test mandated by Civ.R. 50(A)(4) requires the court to discern only whether there exists any evidence of substantive probative value that favors the position of the nonmoving party. Civ.R. 50(A)(4); Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 66, 69, 23 O.O.3d 115, 430 N.E.2d 935.
{¶ 4} "A motion for directed verdict * * * does not present factual issues, but a question of law, even though in deciding such a motion, it is necessary to review and consider the evidence." O'Day v. Webb (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 215, 58 O.O.2d 424, 280 N.E.2d 896, paragraph three of the syllabus. See, also, Wagner v. Roche Laboratories (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 116, 119, 671 N.E.2d 252. Since we are presented with a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review. Cleveland Elec. Ilium. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 521, 523, 668 N.E.2d 889, 891. It is with these principles in mind that we consider Goodyear's assertions of error.
{¶ 5} In determining whether the directed verdicts were properly granted, we must first decide whether the lower courts erred in the method used to allocate insurance coverage among the multiple insurers. Allocation deals with the apportionment of a covered loss across multiple triggered insurance policies. Paar, Recovery is in the Details: Hot Issues in the Administration and Application of General Liability Insurance Policies (2000), 86 PLI/NY 199, 216. The issue of allocation arises in situations involving long-term injury or damage, such as environmental cleanup claims where it is difficult to determine which insurer must bear the loss.
{¶ 6} The parties are in agreement as to which primary insurance policies have been called into play, and there is no dispute that there was continuous pollution across multiple policy periods that gave rise to occurrences and claims to which these policies apply. However, they disagree as to the appropriate method for distributing losses across the triggered policies. There are two accepted methods for allocating coverage. One approach, favored by Goodyear, permits the policyholder to seek coverage from any policy in effect during the time period of injury or damage. This "all sums" approach allows Goodyear to seek full coverage for its claims from any single policy, up to that policy's coverage limits, out of the group of policies that has been triggered. In contrast, the insurers urge us to apply the pro rata allocation scheme implicitly adopted by the court of appeals. Under the pro rata approach, each insurer pays only a portion of a claim based on the duration of the occurrence during its policy period in relation to the entire duration of the occurrence. It divides "a loss `horizontally' among all triggered policy periods, with each insurance company paying only a share of the policyholder's total damages." Id. at 217. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Goodyear's position and adopt the "all sums" method of allocation.
{¶ 7} The starting point for determining the scope of coverage is the language of the insurance policies. The policies at issue require the insurer to "pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of * * * property damage to which this policy applies caused by an occurrence." (Emphasis added.) The policies define "property damage" as "injury to or destruction of tangible property which occurs during the policy period * * *."3 (Emphasis...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Viking Pump Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. . Warren Pumps Llc.
...Co., 534 Pa. 29, 626 A.2d 502 (1993) (expressly following Keene in the asbestos context); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 769 N.E.2d 835 (2002) (basing its decision to allocate liability among insurers joint and severally on the “all sums” langu......
-
Gilson v. Am. Inst. of Alt. Med.
...exists any evidence of substantive probative value that favors the position of the nonmoving party.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 2002-Ohio-2842, 769 N.E.2d 835, ¶ 3. Because a motion for directed verdict tests whether the evidence is sufficient ......
-
Paj, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co.
...N.E.2d at 343; Las Vegas Star Taxi, 714 P.2d at 562; Argo, 794 N.Y.S.2d 704, 827 N.E.2d at 764; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 769 N.E.2d 835, 842 (2002); Walton, 423 S.E.2d at 192; Colonial Ins. Co. v. Barrett, 208 W.Va. 706, 542 S.E.2d 869, 874 (20......
-
Boston Gas Co. v. Century Indem. Co.
...A.2d 481, 494 (Del.2001); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dana Corp., 759 N.E.2d 1049, 1058 (Ind. 2001); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 516-517, 769 N.E.2d 835 (2002); J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 534 Pa. 29, 39-42, 626 A.2d 502 (1993); Am......