Barbara Bennett v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins., 731 F.3d 584

Bennett was struck by a car on November 9, 2010 in Garfield Heights, Ohio; negligence is stipulated against the driver, Pastel.
Bennett was thrown onto the Fusion's hood and suffered additional injuries while on the hood.
Bennett sought a coverage declaration under State Farm's Fusion policy.
The district court granted summary judgment to State Farm, concluding Bennett was not an occupant.
The district court's judgment is reversed; the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Bennett based on the policy definition of occupying as "in, on, entering or alighting from."
State Farm argues traditional interpretations of occupant–pedestrian cases should control, but the court applies the policy's explicit terms and Ohio contract interpretation principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bennett was an occupant under the policy	Bennett was on the hood, thus inside the policy’s occupancy definition.	Bennett was not an occupant given ordinary usage (pedestrians are not occupants).	Yes; Bennett was an occupant under the policy terms.

Hybud Equip. Corp. v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., 597 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio 1992) (contract interpretation rules apply to insurance terms)
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 370 F. App’x 563 (6th Cir. 2010) (interpret contractual provisions individually rather than in gross)
Robson v. Lightning Rod Mut. Ins. Co., 393 N.E.2d 1053 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (intrinsic-relationship test in gray-area occupancy cases)
Estate of Richerson ex rel. Richerson v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 264 P.3d 1087 (Mont. 2011) (distinguishes scenarios where vehicle-related injuries occur)
Rednour v. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co., 661 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. 2003) (plaintiff not necessarily an occupant when not on vehicle)