Collins v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
2017 Ohio 880
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jon Collins (plaintiff) was injured in an auto accident on Oct. 23, 2013; he settled with the tortfeasor's insurer but sought underinsured/uninsured motorist (UIM) benefits under his deceased father Glenn Collins' prepaid Auto-Owners policy.
- The policy ran from July 2, 2013 to January 2, 2014; Glenn (the first-named insured) died before the accident (Aug. 12, 2013). Jon was listed as a "rated/ listed driver" and lived at the address shown on the policy.
- The policy’s UIM provisions extend coverage to a "relative" defined as "a person who resides with you and who is related to you by blood, marriage, or adoption." "You" means the first named insured (and spouse who resides in the same household).
- The policy contains exclusion (g): UIM does not apply to any executor, administrator, or beneficiary of any named insured unless that person is operating or occupying an automobile for which UIM coverage is provided by the policy.
- Trial court denied summary judgment as to UIM, finding Jon still resided at the insured’s residence and that denying coverage would be absurd; the court of appeals reversed, holding Jon did not "reside with" the named insured at the time of the accident and exclusion (g) barred coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jon was a "relative" entitled to UIM coverage (i.e., did he "reside with" the named insured at time of accident?) | Collins: He lived at the insured’s address when policy formed and at accident; "reside with" should be read to cover relatives living at that residence; ambiguity favors insured. | Auto-Owners: "Reside with" is present-tense — insured was deceased at accident, so one cannot "reside with" a dead person; no coverage. | Held for Auto-Owners: "reside with" has plain meaning (dwell permanently/continuously with the named insured); a deceased insured cannot satisfy that present-tense requirement. |
| Applicability of exclusion (g) barring UIM claims by beneficiaries/executors/administrators | Collins: Exclusion (g) is inapplicable because he qualifies under the general UIM provision (i.e., he is a relative), so exclusion need not be invoked. | Auto-Owners: Exclusion (g) plainly bars UIM recovery by any beneficiary (Collins is a beneficiary) unless occupying a covered vehicle; Collins was not in a covered vehicle. | Held for Auto-Owners: Exclusion (g) is unambiguous and applies; Collins not occupying a listed vehicle, so exclusion bars coverage. |
| Whether the policy is illusory if UIM is denied post-death | Collins: Denying UIM to a listed driver while policy term had not expired renders coverage illusory and leaves intended beneficiary unprotected. | Auto-Owners: Policy still provides benefits in many post-death scenarios (spouse, legal representative for covered autos, temporary custodians); not illusory. | Held for Auto-Owners: Policy provides some post-death benefits; not illusory as a matter of law. |
| Standard of construction where terms arguably ambiguous | Collins: Ambiguities should be construed against drafter (insurer) and in favor of insured; public-policy/absurd-result principles support coverage. | Auto-Owners: Language has plain meaning; no ambiguity; no need for contra proferentem. | Held for Auto-Owners: The phrase "reside with" is unambiguous in context; no contra proferentem relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (2003) (court must give effect to parties’ intent and read insurance policy as a whole)
- Travelers Indemn. Co. v. Reddick, 37 Ohio St.2d 119 (1974) (give words plain and ordinary meaning; avoid construction unless plain meaning leads to absurd result)
- Hybud Equip. Corp. v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 657 (1992) (insurance policies are contracts and interpreted under general contract principles)
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Louis Marx & Co., Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 399 (1980) (insurer bears burden to prove exclusion applies to deny coverage)
- Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Koby, 124 Ohio App.3d 174 (11th Dist.) (definitions like "reside"/"resident" have flexible meanings; courts often interpret broadly for coverage)