Celina Mut. Ins. Co. v. Saylor, A-723212
| Decision Date | 12 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. A-723212,A-723212 |
| Citation | 301 N.E.2d 721,35 Ohio Misc. 81 |
| Parties | , 63 O.O.2d 76, 64 O.O.2d 351 The CELINA MUTL. INS. CO. v. SAYLOR et al. * |
| Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
Lindhorst & Dreidame and William H. Cussen, Cincinnati, for plaintiff.
White & Getgey, Cincinnati, for defendants.
This matter came before the court on a Complaint for declaratory judgment. The plaintiff issued to the defendant, Conrad Saylor, a certain family automobile insurance policy No. 2788938 and defendant, Thelma Saylor, wife of Conrad Saylor, was an insured under said policy.
Part IV of the policy is captioned 'Protection Against Uninsured Motorists' and coverage J, a section therein, reads as follows:
'To pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to ercover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death resulting therefrom, hereinafter called 'bodily injury,' sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, manitenance or use of such uninsured automobile * * *.'
The defendants have made a claim against plaintiff under said policy provision for injuries and damages caused by an alleged uninsured motorist on May 15, 1969, to the person of Thelma Saylor, such claim being the subject of a matter pending before the American Arbitration Association, Inc., in conformance with the requirements for the disposition of claims under the uninsured motorists clause.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant's injuries were a result of intentional acts of said alleged uninsured motorist, not accidental, and as such are not covered by the specific terms of the policy of insurance.
The facts essentially in agreement are that Mrs. Thelma Saylor was on strike from her employer and walking picket duty in front of her employer's plant. The uninsured motorist came to the driveway to enter the plant and was blocked from doing so and told by the defendant, Thelma Saylor, and other picketers that he could not enter. He left and returned some short period later driving directly through the entrance-way of the plant striking the defendant Thelma Saylor and causing her injury. The evidence further reveals that although the defendant Thelma Saylor did not actually see the vehicle as it struck her, since her back or side was turned away, she did sign a criminal complaint against the uninsured motorist alleging a violation of R.C. 2901.241, in that he did 'unlawfully assault the above named Thelma Saylor with a deadly weapon, to-wit: an automobile.'
Counsel suggests to the Court that the interpretation of the word 'accident' as it appears in the uninsured motorist provisions of the insurance contract is a matter of first impression in the state of Ohio. Generally, in Ohio, accidental or caused by accident means an unexpected and unintended happening, so that injuries resulting from an assault are not accidentally sustained. It has been held that automobile insurance policies insuring against liability claims resulting from injuries accidentally suffered do not cover an injury resulting from willful, intentional personal violence inflicted by another. The plaintiff cites Commonwealth Casualty Co. v. Headers, 118 Ohio St. 429, 161 N.E. 278; Rothman v. Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co., 134 Ohio St. 241, 16 N.E.2d 417, and 6 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d, Automobile Insurance, Sections 65 and 66, as authority for its position on this issue. Plaintiff also cites Murray v. Landenberger, 5 Ohio App.2d 294, 215 N.E.2d 412, for the proposition that as a matter of public policy, a liability insurance contract insuring against bodily injury would not afford coverage for an act intentionally inflicting injury on another and as additional support for its position, plaintiff cites a New York decision of McCarthy v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 16 A.D.2d 35, 224 N.Y.S.2d 909, for the proposition that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willard v. Kelley, 69347
...unintentional from the standpoint of the insured, it was an "accident" within the terms of the policy. See Celina Mut. Ins. Co. v. Saylor, 35 Ohio Misc. 81, 301 N.E.2d 721 (1973). But the insured in Vanguard lost his claim under his automobile policy because his injury did not arise out of ......
-
Wendell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...120 N.M. 813, 907 P.2d 994; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roberts (1964), 261 N.C. 285, 134 S.E.2d 654; Celina Mut. Ins. Co. v. Saylor (1973), 35 Ohio Misc. 81, 301 N.E.2d 721; Stucky v. Long (Okla.Ct.App.1989), 783 P.2d Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1973), 264 Or. 547, 507 P.2d 9;......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McMillan
...ed. 1994). We find the reasons for viewing the incident from a victim's standpoint as expressed in Celina Mutual Ins. Co. v. Saylor, 35 Ohio Misc. 81, 83-84, 301 N.E.2d 721, 723 (1973) compelling. There, the court [W]e deal with the subject of uninsured motorists coverage. The [insureds] ha......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Blystra
...would require an unconscionable twisting of the obvious purpose of purchasing insurance coverage." Celina Mut. Ins. Co. v. Saylor, 35 Ohio Misc. 81, 301 N.E.2d 721, 723 (1973). Although "it is important to protect the public from `irresponsible or impecunious drivers,' uninsured motorist co......
-
Determining Coverage and Obtaining Policy Limits
...see §1302. See Davis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 507 P2d 9 (Oregon, 1973); Celina Mutual Insurance Co. v. Saylor , 35 Ohio Misc. 81, 301 N.E.2d 721 (1973); Country Companies v. Bourbon by Bourbon, 122 Ill.App.3d 1061, 462 N.E.2d 526 (1984); Leatherby Insurance Co. v. Wil......