American Policyholders Ins. Co. v. Michota

• Decision Date: 13 February 1952
• Docket Number: Nos. 32648 and 32649,s. 32648 and 32649
• Citation: 35 A.L.R.2d 448,103 N.E.2d 817,156 Ohio St. 578
• Parties: , 35 A.L.R.2d 448, 46 O.O. 476 AMERICAN POLICYHOLDERS INS. CO. v. MICHOTA et al. (two cases).
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 578

156 Ohio St. 578

103 N.E.2d 817, 35 A.L.R.2d 448, 46 O.O. 476

AMERICAN POLICYHOLDERS INS. CO. v. MICHOTA et al. (two cases).

Nos. 32648 and 32649.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided Feb. 13, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Policies of insurance which are in language selected by the insurer and which are doubtful or ambiguous in their meaning will be construed most favorably to the insured.

2. A 'professional liability policy' of insurance, wherein the insurer agrees to defend each claim and suit 'as respects an injury arising out of the practice of the insured's profession' and to pay damages which the insured may become obligated to pay 'because of injury resulting from professional services rendered or which would have been rendered,' affords coverage and protection where the insured, a chiropodist, is sued for damages upon the claim that, while plaintiff was a patient of the insured, the latter was negligent in failing to maintain his treatment chair in a safe condition, whereby the plaintiff sustained injury in attempting to utilize such chair pursuant to the insured's instructions.

The instant cause is one wherein an insurer asks for a declaratory judgment absolving it from any obligation under a liability insurance policy issued by it.

Those facts pertinent to the controversy are as follows:

Amelia Hirssig commenced an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County against Stanley V. Michota, a chiropodist of Toledo, to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by his negligence. Mrs. Hirssig claimed in her petition that on November 9, 1949, she was a patient of Michota and went to his office on that date to receive treatment for a foot ailment from which she suffered and for which she had previously been treated by the doctor; that at the direction of the doctor, she entered one of the treatment rooms in his office off the reception room and, further following the doctor's instructions, attempted to seat herself in a metal hydraulic chair designed for the occupancy of patients; that, after she placed her left foot on such chair and attempted to raise herself into the chair as she had done on previous occasions, such chair suddenly rotated to the left, causing her to lose her balance and fall to the floor, whereby she ws injured. It was charged the doctor was negligent in failing to 'lock' the chair before directing Mrs. Hirssig to get into the same, in failing to give warning that the chair was unlocked and would rotate if stepped upon, and in failing to maintain the chair in a safe condition for her use as a patient.

Michota held a policy of liability insurance in the American Policyholders Insurance Company, effective for one year from April 24, 1949. Following receipt of the summons in the action brought against him by Mrs. Hirssig, the doctor transmitted such summons together with a copy of the petition to the attorneys of the insurer in Toledo, with the statement that the injuries described by Mrs. Hirssig were within the coverage of the policy and with a demand that the insurer defend the action and, to the extent provided by the policy, pay any judgment which might be rendered against Michota.

Thereafter, the insurer brought the present action in the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, naming Michota and Mrs. Hirssig as defendants. The prayer of the petition is that the court enter a declaratory judgment under Section 12102, General Code, setting forth the respective rights, duties and liabilities of the parties with respect to the policy of insurance involved, and declaring that the plaintiff-insurer has no obligation to defend the action brought against its insured, whether the same be meritorious or not, and is under no liability to pay any judgment which might be rendered in such action.

The policy issued to Michota is entitled 'Professional Liability Policy' and the provisions thereof relied on by all parties are as follows:

'I. To defend each claim and suit, even though wholly without merit, brought against the insured or his estate to enforce the liability imposed by law for the payment of damages as respects an injury arising out of the practice of the insured's profession as specified herein, and to pay the expenses incurred in the defense of such claim or...