Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1686.,98-1686. |
| Citation | 715 NE 2d 1142,86 Ohio St.3d 557 |
| Parties | EZAWA, A MINOR, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. YASUDA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLEE. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn, Kris M. Dawley and Edwin L. Skeens, for appellants.
Ulmer & Berrie, L.L.P., Alexander M. Andrews and Margaret C. Bettendorf, for appellee.
The discretionary appeal is allowed.
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 667, 710 N.E.2d 1116, 1121.
Koichiro Ezawa, a minor, was injured in an accident while a passenger in an automobile driven by Diedre Soler. Ezawa's damages exceeded the $250,000 per person limit of Soler's liability insurance policy. At the time of the accident, Ezawa's father, Fumiko Ezawa, was employed by Tomasco Mulciber, Inc. ("Tomasco"). Tomasco had a business automobile insurance policy issued by appellee Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of America ("Yasuda"). Although Ezawa was injured by a third party who was not a Tomasco employee and was not in a vehicle covered by Tomasco's insurance policy, Ezawa and his father, nevertheless, made an underinsured motorists ("UIM") claim against the Yasuda policy issued to Fumiko Ezawa's employer.
The trial court granted Yasuda's motion for judgment on the pleadings because, based on the unambiguous language in the Yasuda policy, Koichiro was not an "insured" as that term is defined in the policy. The court of appeals affirmed.
The Yasuda policy was issued to a corporation. According to the language of the policy, UIM coverage extends to family members of the insured only if the named insured is an individual. Here, it is not. Yet the majority applies its convoluted reasoning in Scott-Pontzer to once again extend the reach of UIM coverage. Now a corporate policy must afford UIM coverage to an employee's minor son who was injured by a non-employee while riding in a non-covered vehicle and whose injuries had nothing to do with the corporation's business.
Pandora's Box continues to release its contents.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 2002-0932.
...and scope of their employment, unless otherwise specifically agreed. It also requires overruling Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 557, 715 N.E.2d 1142. {¶ 3} Jason Galatis died on September 24, 1994, as a passenger in a vehicle negligently operated by Shaw......
-
American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn
...(3rd Cir. 1981); Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hurley, 166 N.J. 260, 765 A.2d 195, 203-05 (2001); Ezawa v. Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Of America, 86 Ohio St.3d 557, 715 N.E.2d 1142 (1999). 26. Uptegraft v. Home Ins. Co., 1983 OK 41, ¶ 6, 662 P.2d 681, ...
-
Johnston v. Johnston
...judgment), adding the affirmative defense that plaintiff was estopped from relying on the Ohio Supreme Court's decisions in Scott-Pontzer, Ezawa, Wolfe, and Linko, and their progeny, because "said decisions are unconstitutional in violation of (1) the right of freedom of contract under Ohio......
-
Turek v. Vaughn
...provisions on the basis of the Ohio Supreme Court's pronouncements in Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,12 and Ezawa v. Yasvda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Am.13 {¶ 13} In Scott-Pontzer, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a plaintiffs decedent, who had been killed in an automobile acci......