Bob-Boyd Lincoln Mercury v. Hyatt, BOB-BOYD

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MOYER; DOUGLAS; SWEENEY
Citation513 N.E.2d 331,32 Ohio St.3d 300
PartiesLINCOLN MERCURY et al., Appellants, v. HYATT et al., Appellees.
Decision Date09 September 1987
Docket NumberBOB-BOYD,No. 86-1487

Page 300

32 Ohio St.3d 300
513 N.E.2d 331
BOB-BOYD LINCOLN MERCURY et al., Appellants,
v.
HYATT et al., Appellees.
No. 86-1487.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Sept. 9, 1987.

Schnorf & Schnorf, David M. Schnorf and Christopher F. Parker, Toledo, for appellants.

Page 301

Earl, Warburton & Adams, Andrew S. Adams and Dick M. Warburton, Jr., Columbus, for appellee Robert Hyatt.

Zonak, Poulos & Hunter, Thomas D. Hunter and Andrew W. Cecil, Columbus, for appellee Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

PER CURIAM.

The issue presented in this action is whether Hyatt was an insured under "Coverage Part 500" of the Universal policy at the time of the accident. We find in the negative and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals with regard to this issue.

The court of appeals found Hyatt to be covered under Coverage Part 500 of the Universal policy issued to Bob-Boyd. Coverage Part 500 is labelled "Garage Insurance" and provides coverage not only with respect to "Garage Operations" but also with respect to "Auto Hazard." "Auto Hazard" is defined as:

[513 N.E.2d 333] " * * * [T]he ownership, maintenance or use of any AUTO YOU own or which is in YOUR care, custody or control and: (1) used for the purpose of GARAGE OPERATIONS or * * * (3) furnished for the use of any person or organization."

Coverage Part 500 defines "insured" as follows:

"WHO IS AN INSURED * * *

" * * *

"With respect to the AUTO HAZARD:

"1. YOU;

" * * *

"3. Any other person or organization required by law to be an INSURED while using an AUTO covered by this Coverage Part within the scope of YOUR permission." (Emphasis added.)

The court of appeals held that Hyatt was required by law to be an insured at the time of the accident pursuant to R.C. 4509.51(B) and 4509.101(A)(1). Both sections are part of Ohio's current motor vehicle financial responsibility laws.

R.C. 4509.51 provides in pertinent part:

"Every owner's policy of liability insurance:

" * * *

"(B) Shall insure the person named therein and any other person as insured, using any such motor vehicle with the express or implied permission of the insured, against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such vehicles * * *."

Appellants contend essentially that R.C. 4509.51(B) does not require that Hyatt be considered an insured within the meaning of Coverage Part 500. We agree. Appellants maintain that the policy would include coverage pursuant to R.C. 4509.51(B) only if the policy had been "certified" as proof of financial responsibility pursuant to R.C. 4509.46. As authority for this argument, appellants rely upon our decision in Moyer v. Aron (1964), 175 Ohio St. 490, 26 O.O.2d 130, 196 N.E.2d 454.

Moyer involves a factual scenario similar to the case at bar. Aron was given permission to test drive a 1958 Mercury automobile by an employee of the Hunter Motor Company, an automobile dealer. While operating this vehicle, Aron collided with a bicycle, killing the plaintiff's son. Aron had a policy of automobile insurance issued to him by the Travelers Insurance Company. The 1958 Mercury was covered under Hunter's insurance policy issued by Universal Underwriters Insurance Company. The plaintiff's action on a supplemental petition contended that Aron was insured under the policy issued to Hunter. This court held that Aron was not covered under Hunter's policy and provided the following syllabus:

Page 302

"1. There is no provision in the Financial Responsibility Act requiring a person to purchase an automobile 'owner's policy' of insurance except under circumstances set forth in Section 4509.31, Revised Code.

"2. A person is not an insured under an automobile insurance policy unless such person is defined as an insured by the terms of the policy, except where such policy has been 'certified' under the provision of R.C. 4509.46, Revised Code, and thereby the definition of who is an 'insured' under the policy has been modified to conform to the provisions of the statute. (Section 4509.51, Revised Code.)"

Appellees argue that appellants' reliance upon Moyer is misplaced. This was the view adopted by the court of appeals which stated:

"Moyer * * * is not dispositive of the issues herein * * *. * * * [T]he policy in Moyer expressly provided that the policy would include coverage pursuant to R.C. 4509.151 [sic ] only if the policy were certified pursuant to R.C. 4509.46. The Moyer court found that, in light of the certification provisions of the policy therein involved, a person using the insured vehicle with permission of the owner was not an insured unless the policy had been certified pursuant to R.C. 4509.46, focusing upon the language of the policy with respect to the definition of insured. The policy herein, however, expressly provides that a person[513 N.E.2d 334] using the vehicle with permission of the owner is an insured if required to do so by law. The difference in policy language between the instant policy and that involved in Moyer compels a different result. The policy in Moyer expressly provided that it would afford such coverage only if certified; whereas the policy herein contains no such limitations."

However, in our view, a thorough reading of the Financial Responsibility Act (R.C. 4509.01 et seq.), Moyer and Iszczukiewicz v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. (N.D.Ohio 1960), 182 F.Supp. 733, indicates that Moyer is directly on point with the cause sub judice.

R.C. 4509.01(L) defines a "motor vehicle liability policy" as an " 'owner's policy' or an 'operator's policy' of liability insurance, certified as provided in Section 4509.46 * * * as proof of financial responsibility, * * * to or for the benefit of the person named therein as insured." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 4509.45 provides that one way of showing proof of financial responsibility, when required, is by filing a certificate of insurance as provided in R.C. 4509.46 or 4509.47. R.C. 4509.46 states in pertinent part: "Proof of financial responsibility may be furnished by filing with the registrar of motor vehicles the written certificate of any insurance carrier authorized to do...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Finch, No. 86-1505
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • September 16, 1987
    ...4509.51 et seq. (Moyer v. Aron [1964], 175 Ohio St. 490, 26 O.O.2d 130, 196 N.E.2d 454, and Bob-Boyd Lincoln Mercury v. Hyatt [1987], 32 Ohio St.3d 300, 513 N.E.2d 331, approved and 2. Public policy does not prevent the issuance and enforcement of an automobile liability insurance policy co......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., No. CC990
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 12, 1989
    ...Underwriters Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 166 Mont. 128, 531 P.2d 668 (1975); Bob-Boyd Lincoln Mercury v. Hyatt, 32 Ohio St. 3d 300, 513 N.E.2d 331 (1987); Stout v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 320 Pa.Super. 240, 467 A.2d 18 (1983). These cases were decided under statutes......
  • Northern Ohio Sign Contractors Ass'n v. City of Lakewood, Nos. 86-962
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • September 9, 1987
    ...nuisance. Another telling factor is reflected in the words of the ordinance itself. Its intent reflects limited application. Signs which [513 N.E.2d 331] advertise "any product, service, event, person, institution, or business located on the premise[s] where the sign is located" are not int......
  • In re McConnehea, Bankruptcy No. C-1-88-319.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • September 9, 1988
    ...rather, the statute defines various proof of financial responsibility. Ohio Rev.Code § 4509.101(A); Bob-Boyd Lincoln Mercury v. Hyatt, 32 Ohio St.3d 300, 513 N.E.2d 331 (1987). More important to this case, the penalty of rendering a liability incurred in violation of this statute non-discha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Finch, No. 86-1505
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • September 16, 1987
    ...4509.51 et seq. (Moyer v. Aron [1964], 175 Ohio St. 490, 26 O.O.2d 130, 196 N.E.2d 454, and Bob-Boyd Lincoln Mercury v. Hyatt [1987], 32 Ohio St.3d 300, 513 N.E.2d 331, approved and 2. Public policy does not prevent the issuance and enforcement of an automobile liability insurance policy co......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., No. CC990
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 12, 1989
    ...Underwriters Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 166 Mont. 128, 531 P.2d 668 (1975); Bob-Boyd Lincoln Mercury v. Hyatt, 32 Ohio St. 3d 300, 513 N.E.2d 331 (1987); Stout v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 320 Pa.Super. 240, 467 A.2d 18 (1983). These cases were decided under statutes......
  • Northern Ohio Sign Contractors Ass'n v. City of Lakewood, Nos. 86-962
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • September 9, 1987
    ...nuisance. Another telling factor is reflected in the words of the ordinance itself. Its intent reflects limited application. Signs which [513 N.E.2d 331] advertise "any product, service, event, person, institution, or business located on the premise[s] where the sign is located" are not int......
  • In re McConnehea, Bankruptcy No. C-1-88-319.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • September 9, 1988
    ...rather, the statute defines various proof of financial responsibility. Ohio Rev.Code § 4509.101(A); Bob-Boyd Lincoln Mercury v. Hyatt, 32 Ohio St.3d 300, 513 N.E.2d 331 (1987). More important to this case, the penalty of rendering a liability incurred in violation of this statute non-discha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT