Patrick v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., AUTO-OWNERS
| Decision Date | 18 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | AUTO-OWNERS |
| Citation | 449 N.E.2d 790,5 Ohio App.3d 118 |
| Parties | , 5 O.B.R. 235 PATRICK, Appellant, v.INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A requirement of "immediate notice" in a contract for insurance means notice within a reasonable time under the circumstances of the case.
Lawson & Sharts and Eddie Lawson, Jr., Springfield, for appellant.
Young & Alexander Co., L.P.A., Neil F. Freund and Stephen V. Freeze, Dayton, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant filed his complaint in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas on November 14, 1979, alleging that an automobile owned by him was stolen through theft or fraud and that defendant-appellee, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, was obligated to pay him the value of said automobile under a policy of insurance previously issued. Both appellant and appellee filed separate motions for summary judgment. The court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by appellee and denied the summary judgment sought by the appellant. Appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal, citing a single assignment of error as follows:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of plaintiff-appellant in awarding summary judgment to defendant-appellee when there were genuine issues as to material fact and when plaintiff-appellant, considering the facts before this Court, was entitled to summary judgment on his complaint."
Excerpts of the appellant's deposition, attached to the motion for summary judgment filed by the appellee, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, revealed that appellant Chester Patrick was married to Hedy Patrick in January 1976. In February 1978, they purchased a 1978 Oldsmobile which was titled in their joint names. Auto-Owners Insurance Company thereupon issued a standard insurance policy, insuring said vehicle against theft and other losses. Both Chester Patrick and Hedy Patrick were named insureds on such policy. Actually the policy was issued January 24, 1978, for a term extending through July 24, 1978, and the 1978 Oldsmobile was added by endorsement in March 1978.
Thereafter the Patricks had marital difficulties, and Hedy left for parts unknown, taking the automobile with her. Appellant last saw the automobile and his wife on May 19, 1978. At some time subsequent to May 19, 1978, appellant sued Hedy for divorce, obtaining service by publication, and a divorce decree was granted August 9, 1978. Hedy did not appear at the divorce hearing, nor was she represented by counsel. In June 1979, appellant made claim against Auto-Owners Insurance Company, and when the claim was denied, filed suit on November 14, 1979.
Appellant alleges that the theft occurred August 9, 1978, at which time the divorce was granted and the automobile awarded to appellant. Such argument is ingenious, but dubious. In any case, this court need not rule on the validity of that position since we ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Am. Centennial Ins. Co.
...notice. See W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Hardin (1989), 59 Ohio App.3d 71, 73, 571 N.E.2d 449, 452; Patrick v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 118, 119, 5 OBR 235, 235-236, 449 N.E.2d 790, 791. Under this latter rule, once the insured has offered some evidence that the insurer has not been......
-
American Emp. Ins. v. METRO REG. TRANSIT AUTH.
...Ruby v. Midwestern Indemnity Company, 40 Ohio St.3d 159, 161, 532 N.E.2d 730, 731 (1988), citing Patrick v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 5 Ohio App.3d 118, 119, 449 N.E.2d 790, 791 (Warren Cty. 1982). According to American Employers, the undisputed fact that Metro gave untimely notice und......
-
American Employers Ins. Co. v. Metro Regional Transit Authority
...opportunity properly to defend the lawsuit should weigh heavily in the scale"). And citing Patrick v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 5 Ohio App.3d 118, 119, 5 O.B.R. 235, 449 N.E.2d 790, 791 (Warren Co. 1982), the author of the majority opinion in the Ruby case stated that "[u]nreasonable delay in t......
-
Nickschinski v. Sentry Ins. Co., 62396
...App.2d 41, 42 O.O.2d 109, 233 N.E.2d 597. A delay of over one year is unreasonable as a matter of law. Patrick v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 118, 5 OBR 235, 449 N.E.2d 790. An unreasonable delay is presumed prejudicial to the insured where no evidence is offered to the contr......