Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clyne
Decision Date | 15 April 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92,92 |
Citation | 621 N.E.2d 1355,87 Ohio App.3d 198 |
Parties | HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. CLYNE, Appellant. CA 1872. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
John C. Nemeth and David A. Caborn, Columbus, for appellee.
Scott E. Smith and Charles C. Postlewaite, Columbus, for appellant.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Ross County Court of Common Pleas, finding that Timothy M. Clyne, defendant below and appellant herein, is excluded from insurance coverage pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy issued by appellee, Hastings Mutual Insurance Company. Appellant assigns the following errors for our review.
A review of the record reveals the following facts pertinent to this appeal. Appellant's mother, Sherri Rhoades, purchased a 1987 Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck on June 28, 1990. On July 13, 1990, appellant was involved in an accident in Chillicothe, Ohio. The pickup truck was hit from behind by another automobile.
Appellee Hastings Mutual Insurance Company ("Hastings") had previously issued an auto insurance policy to William and Sherri Rhoades. The declaration page does not list the 1987 pickup truck as a covered vehicle. The truck was purchased primarily for appellant's use. Appellant arranged for an insurance policy to be issued on the pickup truck by Progressive Insurance Company. Appellant obtained only liability insurance on the truck, specifically rejecting uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage in order to obtain a lower premium.
Following the accident, appellant accepted $15,000 from the tortfeasor's insurance company (the policy limit). Appellant then submitted a claim to Hastings for underinsured motorist benefits. Hastings denied coverage. Hastings filed a complaint for declaratory judgment on March 20, 1991, seeking a declaration that appellant was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under the terms of the policy and that the pickup truck was not an insured vehicle under the policy.
Appellant filed an answer and counterclaim on April 23, 1991, to which appellee replied on May 8, 1991. On December 3, 1991, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether appellant was covered under the policy of insurance issued by appellee to William and Sherri Rhoades. On March 26, 1992, the court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment.
In its entry granting summary judgment, the court wrote:
Appellant jointly argues his assignments of error. Accordingly, we shall address them jointly. The granting or denial of a motion for summary judgment is governed by Civ.R. 56, which reads as follows:
Summary judgment is appropriate when the following have been established: (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Civ.R. 56(C); Bostic v. Connor (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 144, 524 N.E.2d 881. The burden of showing that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact falls upon the party moving for summary judgment. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 8 O.O.3d 73, 375 N.E.2d 46; Mitseff v. Wheeler (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798, 801.
In the instant case, appellant does not contend that there is a genuine issue of material fact such that the court erred in granting summary judgment. Rather, appellant asserts that based upon the undisputed facts in this case, appellant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The court below found that appellant was not entitled to underinsured motorist coverage based upon Exclusion A.1., which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
The trial court looked to the definitions section of the insurance policy to determine whether the pickup truck was a "covered auto." That portion of the insurance policy reads as follows:
The court found that neither appellant nor Rhoades contacted appellee asking that the pickup truck be insured and that appellant had already secured other insurance for the pickup truck from Progressive. Therefore, the court found, appellant is not entitled to underinsured motorist coverage.
Appellant argues that the court erred in concluding that appellant was not entitled to underinsured motorist coverage because the court misconstrued the thirty-day notice provision under Definition J.2.b. Appellant cites Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (May 21, 1981), Morrow App. No. CA 584, unreported, 1981 WL 6260, for the proposition that regardless of the fact that appellant did not give notice to Hastings, the pickup truck was automatically covered for thirty days under the policy issued to Rhoades.
In Carpenter v. Gasper (1962), 116 Ohio App. 45, 49, 21 O.O.2d 264, 266, 186 N.E.2d 481, 484, the court stated:
"The generally accepted theory of the nature and purpose of automatic insurance is that it becomes effective immediately upon delivery of the newly acquired automobile and continues in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Swartzentruber v. Wee-K Corp.
...courts should refrain from reading ambiguity into an agreement where it does not otherwise exist. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clyne (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 198, 205, 621 N.E.2d 1355, 1359-1360; Stotridge v. Admr. (June 3, 1992), Pickaway App. No. 91CA18, unreported, 1992 WL 126232 (Stephenson,......
-
Holzer Clinic, Inc. v. Friday G. Simpson, M.D.
... ... H. Washington Ins. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co ... (1993), 95 Ohio App.3d 577, ... exist. See Hastings Mut. Ins Co. v. Clyne (1993), 87 ... Ohio App.3d 198, 205; ... ...
-
Krista K. Swartzentruber v. Wee-K Corp.
... ... (1969), 20 Ohio App.2d 185, 189; American Druggists ... Ins. Co. v. Equifax, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 1980), 505 F. Supp. 66, ... 69. The ... does not otherwise exist. Hastings Mut. Inc. Co. v. Clyne ... (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 198, 205; ... ...
-
Blues To You, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
... ... under the insurance contract, see Motorists Mut. Ins ... Co., v. Ironics, Inc. , 2022-Ohio-841, ¶ 9, the ... application of an ... upon circumstances that furnish reasonable justification ... therefor.'” Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mengel ... Dairy Farms, LLC , 461 F.Supp.3d 655, 665 (N.D. Ohio May ... at *11 (Ct. App. May 31, 1990); see also Hastings Mut ... Ins. Co. v. Clyne , 87 Ohio App 3d 198 (4th Dist. Ct ... App. 1993) (holding that an insurer did not act in ... ...