Shear v. West American Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1526,83-1526
• Citation: 11 Ohio St.3d 162,464 N.E.2d 545,11 OBR 478
• Parties: , 11 O.B.R. 478 SHEAR, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Appellee; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 162

11 Ohio St.3d 162

464 N.E.2d 545, 11 O.B.R. 478

SHEAR, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., Appellee;

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

No. 83-1526.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 20, 1984.

Lyons & Fries Co., L.P.A., James L. Lyons and William L. Ranaghan, Cincinnati, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Brumleve, DeCamp, Wood & Barron, and David Wade Peck, Cincinnati, for appellee.

Droder & Miller Co., L.P.A., A. Dennis Miller and W. John Sellins, Cincinnati, for appellee and cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

I

The first issue presented is whether there was sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court's determination that the West American insurance policy should be reformed to include Charles Shear as a named or designated insured on the grounds of mutual mistake. For the reasons that follow, this court holds that the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court; the trial court's judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The authority of an appellate court to reverse the judgment of a trial court based solely on a question of the sufficiency of the evidence has long been restricted. In C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 , this court so acknowledged and held that "[j]udgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case * * * [shall] not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence." And, in the most recent case of Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 79-80, 461 N.E.2d 1273, it was stated that, "[while] * * * in some instances an appellate court is duty-bound to exercise the limited prerogative of reversing a judgment as being against the manifest weight of the evidence in a proper case, it is also important that in doing so a court of appeals be guided by a presumption that the findings of the trier-of-fact were indeed correct." In the instant case, the court of appeals, in reversing the trial court, did not afford the factual finding and resultant judgment of the trial court the presumptions they deserved.

It should be noted at the outset that there is no dispute between the courts and the parties as to the proper legal standard to be employed in this case. Both the trial court and court of appeals found that, in order to grant reformation of the West American policy so as to include Shear as a named or designated insured on the grounds of mutual mistake, Shear had the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that a mutual mistake was made.

Rather, the disagreement between the courts and indeed the parties is more factual than legal in nature. The trial court found that there was a mutual mistake of fact as to whether coverage was intended for Shear, and listed the following among various facts in support: that Shear was the sole driver of the car and had it under his control at all times, that he undertook responsibility for maintaining and servicing and paying the insurance on the vehicle, that he was named on the original application for insurance coverage, and that his name was subscribed to the application by the insurance agent.

The court of appeals concluded to the contrary, finding that while Shear " * * * may have been laboring under a mistake as to the policy coverage, no mistake was in existence as between the contracting parties, West American and Seven Hills." That court stressed that the testimony revealed that Seven Hills was primarily attempting to shield itself from liability from the use of the leased vehicle and that the insurance agent stated that the goal of the policy was only to protect Shear when he occupied the leased vehicle.

A review of the record in this case reveals that the trial court was presented with differing views of the facts of this case. In finding for appellant, the trial court necessarily found appellant's testimony and the documentary evidence submitted in support thereof to be the most credible. It is well-established that a reviewing court cannot and should not disturb the findings of a trial judge respecting credibility. See, e.g., C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., supra. This court has reviewed the record and finds, as evidenced in part by the facts enumerated by the trial court, that competent, credible evidence was presented to support the trial court's finding that there was a mutual mistake of fact as to coverage and hence reformation of the contract in favor of Shear was proper. Accordingly, the court of appeals erred when it held that the trial court's judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

II

The second issue presented is whether appellant constitutes an insured under the Nationwide policy issued to his son, Thomas Shear, so as to subject Nationwide to potential liability. This court holds that the lower courts properly found that appellant is an insured under the Nationwide policy.

The coverage grant under Nationwide's automobile policy issued to Thomas Shear for uninsured motorist protection is contained within the policy, providing in pertinent part as follows:

"COVERAGE

"Under this coverage, we will pay bodily injury damages that you or your legal representative are legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle. Damages must result from an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured vehicle. Bodily injury means bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death.

"Relatives living in your household also have this protection."

In the definitional section of the policy, the...