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, LLC) and his father Darrin were passengers in a minivan driven by a coworker when a crash killed Darrin and injured Kyle.
- Lee’s owned and was the named insured on a business auto policy issued by Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) covering a 1999 Ford F‑450 (the truck); no individual persons were named insureds.
- The truck had broken down days earlier (diesel fuel froze) and was inoperable and awaiting tow/repair; Kyle normally used the truck to commute with his father to work.
- Because the truck was inoperable, Kyle and Darrin accepted a ride from coworker Mark in his minivan to get home and to work the next day; the injury/death occurred while occupying that minivan.
- Kyle and the Estate sued CIC for a declaratory judgment that the policy’s “temporary substitute” provision covered injuries sustained while occupying the minivan; the trial court ruled for CIC; the court of appeals reversed.
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, making injuries while "occupying" it covered | Kyle: the truck was out of service due to breakdown and the minivan was used as a short‑term replacement to get to/from work, so the policy’s temporary substitute language applies | CIC: the minivan was not a substitute covered vehicle because Kyle was merely a passenger and did not have permission or authority to use Mark’s vehicle as a substitute for the truck | Court of Appeals: reversed trial court — minivan qualified as 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; thus coverage applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Laboy v. Grange Indemn. Ins. Co., 144 Ohio St.3d 234 (2015) (insurance policy interpretation is a question of law)
- Sharonville v. Am. Employers Inc. Co., 109 Ohio St.3d 186 (2006) (starts point for contract interpretation principles)
- Burris v. Grange Mut. Cos., 46 Ohio St.3d 84 (1989) (interpretation aims to ascertain parties’ intent; give words plain and ordinary meaning)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (1978) (contract terms given plain meaning unless manifest absurdity or contrary evidence)
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (2012) (de novo review for declaratory‑judgment questions of law)