Butche v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 37394,37394 |
| Parties | , 21 O.O.2d 418 BUTCHE, d.b.a. The Electrosonics Co., Appellant, v. The OHIO CASUALTY INS. CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a loss would be covered by more than one of the coverages provided for in an insurance policy form, a policy on that form will cover that loss although it may provide for only one of those coverages.
2. Where a policy of insurance prepared by an insurer provides generally for a certain coverage, exclusions from such coverage must be expressly provided for or must arise by necessary implication from the words used in the policy.
3. Policies of insurance, which are in language selected by the insurer and which are reasonably open to different interpretations, will be construed most favorably for the insured.
This action was instituted in the Columbus Municipal Court to recover on an insurance policy insuring plaintiff against liability for damage to property resulting from certain specified risks. Attached to the policy is a 'hangar keepers liability endorsement' stating that the policy is 'extended to apply with respect to liability imposed upon the insured * * * for * * * damage to aircraft * * * which are the property of others and in the custody of the insured for storage, repair or servicing, and on or about the premises described in the declarations * * * as occupied by the named insured.'
This endorsement provides further that 'the insurance afforded by this endorsement is only with respect to such and so many of the following coverages as are indicated by a specific premium charge or charges.' Thereafter the following, among other 'coverages,' are specifically set forth:
* * *
* * *
A specific premium charge is indicated for each of the coverages except coverage 'E' with respect to which the word 'Nil' was indicated under the heading, 'premium.'
In the margin, next to these descriptions of 'coverages' and the premiums charged therefor, is the following:
'The word 'nil' in any premium space shall mean that insurance is not afforded with respect to the coverage opposite thereto.'
Plaintiff had agreed to do some work on a plane, had completed a light test of the plane, and was engaged in getting it back to plaintiff's hanger when the wind picked up the tail of the plane and turned it over onto its nose and left wing tip and thereby damaged it.
A judgment for $1,471.94 was reversed by the Court of Appeals and final judgment was rendered for defendant: In rendering its judgment, the Court of Appeals stated that the plane was 'taxiing' when damaged and that the policy provided no coverage for a plane while taxiing.
The cause is now before this court on appeal from that judgment of the Court of Appeals and pursuant to allowance of defendant's motion to certify the record.
Walter J. Siemer, Columbus, for appellant.
Hamilton & Kramer and E. Bruce Hadden, Columbus, for appellee.
In view of the conclusion which we have reached, it is not necessary for us to consider whether the Court of Appeals was correct in determining that the plane was 'taxiing' at the time it was damaged. We will assume that it was. However, we cannot agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the policy provided no coverage on account of 'windstorm' damage to a plane while such plane was 'taxiing.'
There is no express provision of the policy excluding 'windstorm' coverage during 'taxiing' operations. Although the marginal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northbrook Excess and Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co.
...supplied) (quoting Munchick v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 2 Ohio St.2d 303, 209 N.E.2d 167, 169 (Ohio 1965)); Butche v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 174 Ohio St. 144, 187 N.E.2d 20, 22 (Ohio 1962) ("[P]olicies of insurance, which are in language selected by the insurer and which are reasonably open to dif......
-
Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, Inc.
...by the insurer they are to be construed strictly against the insurer, and liberally in favor of the insured. Butche v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. (1962),174 Ohio St. 144, 187 N.E.2d 20. See 30 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 225 and 227, Sections 215 and 216.[7] In other words, an insurer is bound by the pro......
-
Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Finch
...See, e.g., Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Price (1974), 39 Ohio St.2d 95, 68 O.O.2d 56, 313 N.E.2d 844; Butche v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. (1962), 174 Ohio St. 144, 21 O.O.2d 418, 187 N.E.2d 20. Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that this rule can not be employed "to create ambiguity where there is none."......
-
Scott v. Allstate Indemnity Company
...Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lightning Rod Mutual Ins. Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 584, 687 N.E.2d 717, 719 (1997); Butche v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 174 Ohio St. 144, 187 N.E.2d 20 (1962). It should be emphasized, however, that provisions are to be strictly construed against the insurer only when the......