Cincinnati Indemn. Co. v. Martin
| Decision Date | 16 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 98-1384,98-1492,s. 98-1384 |
| Citation | 710 N.E.2d 677,85 Ohio St.3d 604 |
| Parties | CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee, v. MARTIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
An insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its insured in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a noninsured based on the death of an insured where the policy excludes liability coverage for claims based on bodily injury to an insured.
This lawsuit stems from the tragic shooting death on November 22, 1995, of six-year-old Michael Martin. Michael and his eight-year-old brother, Ricky, were playing when Ricky shot Michael with a rifle. The incident occurred at their home, where they resided with their mother, defendant, Stephanie Martin. Due to divorce, their father, David Martin, defendant-appellant, lived at a separate residence. At the time, Stephanie Martin had a homeowner's policy with plaintiff-appellee, Cincinnati Indemnity Company ("CIC").
As administrator of Michael's estate, appellant filed a wrongful death action against Stephanie, alleging that her negligence in failing to supervise the children and in failing to safely store the rifle caused Michael's death. After being notified of the wrongful death lawsuit, CIC commenced the instant declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination as to whether it was required to defend and indemnify Stephanie against the wrongful death claim. The parties stipulated that under the terms of the homeowner's policy, Michael and Ricky were insureds (since they were relatives residing with Stephanie, the named insured), but that appellant was not an insured.
David Martin and CIC filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in CIC's favor on the ground that appellant's claim was excluded from coverage. It found that the plain language of the policy excludes liability coverage for bodily injury to an insured, including the wrongful death claim brought by David Martin. Therefore, the trial court declared that CIC has no duty to defend or indemnify Stephanie Martin against the wrongful death claim brought by David Martin.
The court of appeals affirmed and certified its judgment as being in conflict with the judgment of the Stark County Court of Appeals in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thompson (Aug. 27, 1990), Stark App. No. CA-8112, unreported, 1990 WL 125481. The cause is now before the court upon our determination that a conflict exists (case No. 98-1492) and upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal (case No. 98-1384).
Stephen R. Fogle, Cincinnati, for appellee.
Robert N. Piper III and Roger S. Gates, Hamilton, for appellant.
The issue certified for our review is "whether an insurer has a duty to indemnify and/or defend a homeowner/policyholder against a wrongful death claim by a non-household member wrongful death beneficiary who is not an 'insured' under the policy when the death involved is that of an 'insured' under the policy." For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified issue in the negative and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
It is axiomatic that an insurer may maintain a declaratory judgment action to determine its rights and obligations under a contract of insurance. Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 108, 30 OBR 424, 507 N.E.2d 1118, paragraph one of the syllabus. A liability insurer's obligation to its insured arises only if the claim falls within the scope of coverage. The insurer need not provide a defense if there is no set of facts alleged in the complaint which, if proven true, would invoke coverage. Id. at 114, 30 OBR at 429, 507 N.E.2d at 1124. Thus, if it is established that the claim falls within an exclusion to coverage, the insurer is under no obligation to defend the insured. Gearing v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 34, 36, 665 N.E.2d 1115, 1117.
In determining whether CIC has the duty to indemnify and/or defend its insured, Stephanie Martin, against the wrongful death claim brought against her, we first look at the language of the insurance contract itself. The homeowner's policy issued by CIC to Stephanie Martin provides:
The CIC policy defines the terms "bodily injury," "insured," and "occurrence" as follows:
The exclusion in the CIC policy that is relevant to the issue presented reads as follows:
The lower courts found that this exclusion for bodily injury to an insured was applicable and precluded any coverage resulting from Michael's death. As a result, the courts concluded that CIC did not have the duty to indemnify Stephanie Martin or to provide her with a defense in the underlying wrongful death lawsuit.
Appellant concedes that Stephanie would have no liability coverage for bodily injury claims brought by another insured. Nevertheless, he argues that this exclusion applies only to injuries suffered by an insured, not to injuries suffered by him, a noninsured. He further maintains that the exclusion is inapplicable, since he has suffered his own injury as a wrongful death beneficiary. Consequently, he argues that there is insurance coverage and CIC has a duty to defend and indemnify Stephanie in the underlying wrongful death lawsuit.
Appellant urges us to follow the certified case of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thompson, supra. In Allstate, the decedent's emancipated children who lived outside the home brought a wrongful death lawsuit against their mother's husband for their mother's death. Allstate then brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether it had to indemnify and provide a defense in the underlying lawsuit. The Allstate policy that was issued to the parents defined "bodily injury" as "bodily injury, sickness or disease, including required care, loss of services and resulting death." 1 In finding that Allstate had a duty to defend and indemnify its insured, the court of appeals reasoned that even though the policy excluded liability coverage for claims based on bodily injury to an insured, the children's wrongful death claims were not excluded from coverage because they were based not on "bodily injury" to the insured decedent but on the children's own "bodily injury" as defined to include damages for wrongful death. The court concluded that because the policy definition of "bodily injury" "employed some of the very words that the legislature used when it enacted R.C. 2125.02(B)(2) and (3)" and "incorporate[d] within the plain meaning of its letter and the manifest intent of its spirit the element of damages that may be recoverable for wrongful death under R.C. 2125.02(B)(2)," the insurance company was obligated to defend and indemnify the claims of the wrongful death beneficiaries of the decedent insured. Id.
We reject the reasoning employed by the Allstate court. The fact that the homeowner's policy uses some of the same language as used in the wrongful death statute does not mean that the policy provides liability coverage against a claim by a wrongful death beneficiary who is not an insured. In fact, the language contained in the policy at issue provides otherwise. It is well established that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wesco Ins. Co. v. Roderick Linton Belfance, LLP
...because they fall "clearly and indisputably outside" Wesco's policy. Ward , 951 N.E.2d at 773–74 ; Cincinnati Indem. Co. v. Martin , 85 Ohio St.3d 604, 710 N.E.2d 677, 678 (1999). One final point. When debating whether Wesco's policy applies here, the parties have not distinguished the cost......
-
Florists' Mut. Ins. v. Ludy Greenhouse Mfg., 3:05cv369.
...insurer's obligation to its insured arises only if the claim falls within the scope of coverage." Cincinnati Indem. Co. v. Martin, 85 Ohio St.3d 604, 605, 710 N.E.2d 677 (1999) (citation The parties agree that the insurance Policies at issue are governed by Ohio law. In Ohio, insurance poli......
-
Ferro Corp. v. Cookson Group, No. 1:06CV3070.
...alleged in the underlying complaint against the insured that, if proven true, would invoke coverage." Cincinnati Indem. Co. v. Martin, 85 Ohio St.3d 604, 605, 710 N.E.2d 677 (1999). "Importantly, courts will not imply that a cause of action has been pled in a complaint merely because the al......
-
Elkins v. American Intern. Special Lines Ins. Co.
...enforce the contract as written giving words used in the contract their plain and ordinary meaning. Cincinnati Indemn. Co. v. Martin, 85 Ohio St.3d 604, 605, 607, 710 N.E.2d 677 (1999). Defendant argues that the policy in question is a "claims made" policy, and that timely notice of plainti......