Portaro v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.
Decision Date | 28 December 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 14930.,14930. |
Citation | 310 F.2d 897 |
Parties | Joseph PORTARO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Lewis Einbund and William J. Kraus, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
George J. Umstead, Cleveland, Ohio (Leslie R. Ulrich, Jamison, Ulrich, Hope, Johnson & Burt, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge.
O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, Joseph Portaro, sought a declaratory judgment, based on an insurance policy, to compel defendant-appellee, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., to defend him, and to pay any judgment that might be recovered against him, in a tort action then pending against him in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The tort action charged Portaro with an assault and battery upon a woman patron of a beauty parlor operated by a corporation of which he was an officer. The District Judge tried the cause on stipulated facts and dismissed the complaint.
An Ohio corporation, Lady Beautiful, Inc., d/b/a Jo Portaro, was the named insured in a comprehensive liability policy issued by defendant. The term "insured" included any officer of the named insured, while acting within the scope of his duties. Portaro was an officer of the insured corporation. By its policy, as originally issued on or about July 30, 1958, the defendant agreed:
The policy further provided:
The policy further provided that "with respect to such insurance as is afforded by this policy" the company would defend any suit against the insured, even if such suit be groundless. By an endorsement on the policy, its coverage was changed from an "accident" basis to an "occurrence" basis. The endorsement, entitled "Occurrence Basis," provided that:
The effect of such endorsement was to amend Coverage A of the policy to read:
and to amend paragraph 3(d) to read:
Relying on Sec. 3(d), defendant refused to defend appellant in the civil action wherein he was charged with having committed an assault and battery on a patron of the beauty parlor operated by Lady Beautiful, Inc. The patron brought a separate action against the corporation, Lady Beautiful, Inc., based on the same alleged tort for which she sued Portaro, individually. Defendant accepted the defense of the action against the corporation, and does not question the corporation's coverage by the policy involved.
Plaintiff-appellant contends, first, that defendant is required to defend him in the assault action even though it might be held that defendant would not be required, under the policy, to pay a judgment obtained against him. His second position is that the policy, as amended by the endorsement, no longer excludes coverage for an assault and battery committed by the insured; or, in the alternative, that Coverage A and Section 3 (d) are inconsistent with each other and create an ambiguity which must be resolved against defendant and in favor of coverage. This is a diversity case and Ohio law controls.
In Insuring Agreement II of the policy, the defendant agrees to "defend any suit against the insured" but such agreement is "with respect to such insurance as is afforded by this policy." Under Ohio law, the insurance carrier's duty to defend depends upon whether the allegations of the petition or complaint describe an occurrence or event which is within the coverage of the policy. Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 144 Ohio St. 382, 59 N.E.2d 199; Lessak v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. of New York, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc.
.... any executive officer, director or stockholder thereof while acting within the scope of his duties as such"); Portaro v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 310 F.2d 897 (6th Cir.1962) (Ohio law) ("The term `insured' included any officer of the named insured, while acting within the scope of his ......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Waltham Indus. Laboratories
...N.E.2d 1227, 1233 (1984), citing Portaro v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 210 F.Supp. 411, 415 (N.D.Ohio 1962), aff'd, 310 F.2d 897 (6th Cir.1962). They further argue that the crawl space does not fall within the leased property exception, nor any other exclusion, and should prop......
-
Casey v. Calhoun
...that policy must be declared void. Portaro v. American Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. (N.D. Ohio 1962), 210 F.Supp. 411, 416, affirmed (C.A. 6, 1962), 310 F.2d 897; Willowick Towers Investment Co. v. General Ins. Co. of America (Sept. 22, 1980), Lake App. No. 7-239, unreported. But, see, Empire Fir......
-
The Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp., N/k/a Quantum Chemical Corp.
... ... Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, and American Centennial Insurance Company, Plaintiff ... and ... Compensation and Employers' Liability Policy" (01 C ... 209397 SCA) and have agreed to ... 50, at 52, 16 N.E.2d 417, at 420; Portaro v ... American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co ... ...