2016 Ohio 561
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On May 22, 2010, Michelle Custer was a passenger in her husband John Custer’s car; John lost control and Michelle was injured.
- The Allstate policy provided liability, medical-payments ($2,000), and optional UM/UIM coverage for the vehicle John operated.
- Allstate denied liability coverage for John under an intra-family exclusion (no coverage for bodily injury to a person related by marriage and residing in the household).
- Allstate also denied Michelle’s UM claim, reasoning the policy defines a vehicle insured under its liability portion as not an “uninsured auto.”
- Michelle sued John and Allstate seeking coverage; the trial court granted Allstate summary judgment and declared Allstate owed no defense or indemnity.
- Michelle appealed, arguing the intra-family exclusion conflicted with R.C. 3937.18 and therefore she was entitled to UM coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intra-family exclusion in liability section is enforceable to bar liability coverage | Custer: R.C. 3937.18 precludes insurer from denying both liability and UM via intra-family exclusion; statute’s definition of uninsured motorist includes when insurer denies coverage | Allstate: Policy exclusion valid; intra-family exclusion bars liability coverage to family-member claimant | Court: Intra-family exclusion valid; Allstate properly denied liability coverage |
| Whether denial of liability makes tortfeasor an "uninsured motorist" under R.C. 3937.18 so UM must apply | Custer: Statutory definition of uninsured includes a motorist whose insurer denies coverage, so UM should cover her | Allstate: Policy defines "uninsured auto" to exclude vehicles insured under the policy’s liability portion; thus UM does not apply | Court: Policy definition is permissible under R.C. 3937.18; denial of liability does not automatically create UM coverage when policy explicitly excludes insured vehicles |
| Whether R.C. 3937.18(I) forbids insurers from listing exclusions not expressly in statute (e.g., intra-family when vehicle is specifically identified) | Custer: Legislative removal of former subsection suggests intent to prohibit intra-family restrictions; 3937.18(I)(1) limits exclusions to vehicles not specifically identified | Allstate: "Including but not limited to" in 3937.18(I) permits insurers to specify additional exclusions in policy language | Court: R.C. 3937.18(I) permits insurers to include specified terms that preclude UM coverage even if not listed in statute; such policy terms are enforceable |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Custer: Genuine issues exist over statutory interpretation and conflict between policy and statute | Allstate: No genuine factual dispute; pure legal interpretation; entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Court: No genuine material facts; Allstate entitled to judgment as matter of law; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 833 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio 2005) (standard for de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Snyder v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 871 N.E.2d 574 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 3937.18 permits policies to limit or exclude UM coverage under circumstances specified in the policy)
- Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden to show absence of genuine issue)
- Welco Indus., Inc. v. Applied Cos., 617 N.E.2d 1129 (Ohio 1993) (summary judgment should be awarded with caution; construe evidence for nonmoving party)