State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rose
Decision Date | 21 August 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-2399,90-2399 |
Citation | 61 Ohio St.3d 528,575 N.E.2d 459 |
Parties | STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROSE, Admr., et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
An automobile liability insurance policy may apply a single limit to separate c laims arising out of a single bodily injury provided the policy limitation trac ks the corresponding limitation on liability coverage, and is unambiguously sta ted. (Burris v. Grange Mut. Cos. [1989], 46 Ohio St.3d 84, 545 N.E.2d 83, appl ied and followed; Wood v. Shepard [1988], 38 Ohio St.3d 86, 526 N.E.2d 1089, f urther limited and distinguished.)
This action was brought in federal district court as a declaratory judgment action, stemming from a wrongful death action filed in state court by respondents, John Rose et al., against James E. Hanes. Hanes, who was insured by the petitioner, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), allegedly negligently caused a motor vehicle accident in which John Rose's wife, Karen Rose, was killed. Karen Rose was survived by her husband, her daughter, her parents, one brother and three sisters. The pertinent facts as supplied by the federal district court and stipulated by the parties are:
Upon review, the trial court decided that it would be in the interest of judicial economy to have a question certified to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to Rule XVI of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice.
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs and David W. Hilkert, Akron, for petitioner State Farm.
Dennis M. Zavinski, Ravenna, for respondents John Rose et al.
Roetzel & Andress, Ronald B. Lee and Lee A. Schaffer, Canton, in support of petitioner for amici curiae, Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. and Meridian Mut. Ins. Co.
The sole issue before us on certification from the federal district court is whether "the language in coverage A, liability coverage, as amended in endorsement 6890AW 1 ["endorsement"] [is] clear and unambiguous so as to limit all derivative death claims of John Rose to a single $50,000.00 recovery?" (Emphasis added.) For the reasons which follow, we answer this query in the affirmative.
The language in the endorsement (numbered 6890AW) which the parties agree controls the resolution of this issue is as follows:
A clause similar to the one at bar was reviewed in Burris v. Grange Mut. Cos. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 84, 545 N.E.2d 83. In Burris, the administrator of an estate sought recovery in the amount of $300,000 from Grange Mutual. Grange Mutual had issued a "split limits" policy in the amount of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. Id. at 87, 545 N.E.2d at 87. This court, in construing the policy language, held that only $100,000 was available to be recovered by the deceased's estate. In so holding, this court relied upon the following policy language:
" 'Limits of Liability: The limit of bodily injury liability stated in the declarations as applicable to "each person" is the limit of the company's liability for all damages, including damages for care and loss of services, arising out of bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of any one occurrence; the limit of such liability stated in the declarations as applicable to "each occurrence" is, subject to the above provision respecting each person, the total limit of the company's liability for all such damages arising out of bodily injury sustained by two or more persons as the result of any one occurrence.' " Id. at 87, 545 N.E.2d at 87.
We find the "Limits of Liability" clauses in Burris and the case at bar to be essentially the same. Both policies in these cases make it absolutely clear that all claims resulting from an injury to one person involved in a single accident will be subject to the "Each Person" limit of liability contained in the respective policy.
As in Burris, the claimant in this case, Mr. Rose, cites Wood v. Shepard (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 86, 526 N.E.2d 1089, as controlling the outcome of this decision. In Wood, this court stated:
"Each person entitled to recover damages pursuant to R.C. 2125.02 for wrongful death, and who is an insured under an underinsured motorist provision in an insurance policy, has a separate claim and such separate claims may not be made subject to the single person limit of liability in the underinsured motorist provision." Id. at syllabus.
In Burris, this court distinguished and limited Wood by stating:
Burris, supra, 46 Ohio St.3d at 87-88, 545 N.E.2d at 87-88.
Furthermore, in limiting Wood only to uninsured policy provisions, the Burris court found its rationale inapplicable to the invalidation of the per-person policy limitations before it. Id. at 88-89, 545 N.E.2d at 88.
Generally, in construing contracts of insurance, words in a policy must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and only in situations where the contract is ambiguous and thus susceptible to more than one meaning must the policy language be liberally construed in favor of the claimant who seeks the benefits of coverage. Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Finch (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 360, 362, 513 N.E.2d 1324, 1327; Faruque v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 34, 31 OBR...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Guillermin
...language be liberally construed in favor of the claimant who seeks the benefits of coverage." State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rose (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 528, 531-532, 575 N.E.2d 459, 461, overruled on other grounds by Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809. Ac......
-
American States Ins. Co. v. Alverda Guillermin, 96-LW-0045
... ... Alverda also owns a fifty-two acre farm in Brown County, ... Ohio. The policy did not include the farm ... State ... Farm Auto Ins. Co. v. Rose (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 528 ... ...
-
Erie Ins. Group v. Wolff
...e.g., Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 500, 620 N.E.2d 809 (overruling, inter alia, State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rose [1991], 61 Ohio St.3d 528, 575 N.E.2d 459; paragraphs one and two of the syllabus of Burris v. Grange Mut. Cos. [1989], 46 Ohio St.3d 84, 545 N.E.2d 83; ......
-
Savoie v. Grange Mut. Ins. Co.
...wrongful death damages suffered by individuals into one "each person" policy limit are unenforceable. (State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Rose [1991], 61 Ohio St.3d 528, 575 N.E.2d 459, and paragraphs one and two of the syllabus of Burris v. Grange Mut. Cos. [1989], 46 Ohio St.3d 84, 545 N.E.2d 8......
-
Underinsured motorist coverage
...coverage matched the negligent driver’s policy limits. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court overruled State Farm Insurance Company v. Rose , 575 N.E.2d 459 (1991), noting that the Ohio Constitution proscribes laws aimed at limiting damages in wrongful death actions. Hence, the decedent’s famil......