Rhoades v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 77-208

• Decision Date: 12 April 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-208,77-208
• Citation: 374 N.E.2d 643,8 O.O.3d 39,54 Ohio St.2d 45
• Parties: , 8 O.O.3d 39 RHOADES, Appellee, v. The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF the UNITED STATES, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 45

54 Ohio St.2d 45

374 N.E.2d 643, 8 O.O.3d 39

RHOADES, Appellee, v. The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF the UNITED STATES, Appellant.

No. 77-208.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 12, 1978.

Paul D. Rhoades, husband of appellee, Rose M. Rhoades, was insured by appellant, The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, under a group accidental death and dismemberment policy, which called for the payment of an indemnity in the event that the insured sustained bodily injuries in an accident and as a result of which the insured died within 90 days.

On September 13, 1974, Paul Rhoades suffered severe injuries in an automobile accident. He remained in Timken Mercy Hospital until released on October 11, 1974. On December 21, 1974, Rhoades was readmitted to the hospital, but discharged again on January 5, 1975. Rhoades died two days later, on January 7, 1975, which was 116 days after the accident. His death was caused by " 'cardiac arrest; acute myocardial infarction (recent).' "

The facts, as set forth above, have been stipulated by the parties. In addition, the parties stipulated that:

"A substantial question of fact exists as to whether or not Mr. Rhoades' death was the result, directly or independently of all other causes, of injuries caused directly and exclusively by external, violent and purely accidental means."

Equitable refused to pay Mrs. Rhoades the accidental death indemnity.

Appellee then commenced this action against the insurance company claiming breach of contract. Appellant defended upon the grounds that the death of Paul Rhoades was not the direct and independent result of the automobile accident and that Rhoades did not die within 90 days after the accident pursuant to the conditions of the insurance contract.

On July 12, 1976, a motion for summary judgment by appellant was sustained by the trial court on the basis that the indemnity provision of the policy was effective only if the insured died within 90 days of the alleged accident. The trial court also made a preliminary finding "that a substantial question of fact exists as to whether or not Mr. Rhoades' death was the result * * * " of the automobile accident.

In a split decision, the Court of Appeals for Stark County reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause, holding that the contract provision limiting recovery to situations where death occurs within 90 days of an accident is contrary to public policy, and, therefore, unenforceable.

This cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Mills, Mills, Fiely & Lucas and Frank Lucas, Canton, for appellee.

Day, Ketterer, Raley, Wright & Rybolt, John F. Buchman and James R. Blake, Canton, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

It is well-settled in Ohio that insurance policies should be enforced in accordance with their terms as are other written contracts. Where the provisions of the policy are clear and unambiguous, courts cannot enlarge the contract by implication so as to embrace an object distinct from that originally contemplated by the parties. Motorists Mutl. Ins. Co. v. Tomanski (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 222, 226, 271 N.E.2d 924.

In the instant cause, the time-limitation provision of the accidental death policy was written by the parties in such language. The intent of the parties was that death of the insured occurring within 90 days after an accident was compensable; death occurring thereafter, although accidentally caused, was not compensable. Since it is not the function of this court to rewrite insurance contracts so as to provide coverage which we might consider more equitable, this contract provision must be enforced as written, unless held to be contrary to public policy. ¹

Appellee proposes that the time limitation is void as contrary to public policy. We cannot agree. "We know of no public policy justification for ignoring the language of a contract in order to impose liability on a defendant insurer for a loss not contemplated by the contract." Shelton v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S. (1961), 28 Ill.App.2d 461, 469, 171 N.E.2d 787, 791.

The test as to whether...