Conaway v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
2017 Ohio 8787
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Jan. 8, 2014 Kyle Conaway (CEO of Lee’s Hydraulic & Pneumatic Services) and his father Darrin were passengers in a co-worker Mark’s minivan when a crash ejected both; Darrin died and Kyle was injured.
- Lee’s owned and insured a 1999 Ford F-450 under a Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) business auto policy; the policy named only the corporation, not individuals.
- The insured truck had broken down days earlier (diesel fuel froze) and was inoperable and awaiting tow/repair; Mark gave Kyle and Darrin a ride to work instead of renting a vehicle.
- Kyle sued CIC seeking a declaratory judgment that CIC’s policy covered injuries sustained while "occupying" a temporary substitute vehicle for the covered truck.
- Trial court ruled for CIC; the court of appeals reversed, holding the minivan was a temporary substitute vehicle and coverage was owed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the minivan was a "temporary substitute" for the covered truck under the business auto policy | Kyle: truck was out of service; he intended the minivan to serve as a short-term substitute to get to/from work, so occupants are covered | CIC: occupants were merely passengers with no permission to "use" Mark’s vehicle as a substitute; policy covers only substitute vehicles used by the insured, not vehicles where insured merely rode as a passenger | Court: Minivan was a temporary substitute because the covered vehicle was out of service and the minivan was being used to perform the truck’s usual transport function; coverage applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (2012) (de novo review applies to legal issues in declaratory-judgment actions)
- Laboy v. Grange Indem. Ins. Co., 144 Ohio St.3d 234 (2015) (insurance-policy interpretation is a question of law)
- Burris v. Grange Mut. Cos., 46 Ohio St.3d 84 (1989) (policy language should be read to give effect to parties’ intent; ambiguous terms construed for insured)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (1978) (use plain and ordinary meaning of contract terms absent absurdity)
- Sharonville v. Am. Employers Ins. Co., 109 Ohio St.3d 186 (2006) (reiterating insurance policy interpretation principles)