Doe v. Magro
2014 Ohio 1202
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- L.O., a 14-year-old student, lived with her teacher Jennifer Magro and Jennifer’s husband Salvatore after problems at home; Jane Doe (mother) consented to a temporary guardianship arrangement.
- About a month after moving in, Salvatore began a sexual relationship with L.O.; Salvatore later pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.
- After April 18, 2010, L.O. left the Magros’ home and stayed briefly at a motel and then with her mother; facts are disputed about where L.O. lived and who had custody/care after that date.
- Jane Doe and L.O. sued the Magros; State Farm, the Magros’ homeowner insurer, intervened and sought declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify under the policy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm, finding L.O. was an “insured” (a resident of the Magros’ household or a person “in the care of” a named insured) and that the policy excluded claims by one insured against another.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact remained about whether L.O. was a resident of the Magros’ household after April 18 and whether she was “in the care of” a named insured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether L.O. was a “resident of your household” under the policy after April 18, 2010 | L.O.: she ceased residing in the Magros’ home on April 18; thus she was not a resident after that date | State Farm: L.O. continued to live with Salvatore after April 18 and therefore remained a resident insured | Reversed trial court; genuine factual disputes exist about L.O.’s residence status after April 18 |
| Whether L.O. was an “other person under the age of 21 who is in the care of a person described above” | L.O.: disputed facts show she was not in the named insured’s care after April 18, especially given Salvatore’s illicit relationship | State Farm: L.O. was under Salvatore’s care during the relevant period, making her an insured | Reversed trial court; genuine factual disputes exist about whether L.O. was “in the care of” a named insured |
| Whether insurer has duty to defend/indemnify when insured-vs-insured exclusion applies | L.O.: exclusion should not apply if she was not an insured after April 18 | State Farm: exclusion bars coverage because L.O. qualified as an insured and the claim is by one insured against another | Court remanded because insured status is unresolved; duty issue not decided on merits until facts resolved |
| Proper interpretation of undefined policy terms ("resident", "household", "care") | L.O.: plain-meaning analysis supports finding factual disputes about application of those terms | State Farm: policy language supports insurer’s reading that L.O. was covered | Court applied plain-meaning and precedent, concluding terms must be applied literally and factual disputes preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomolka v. State Auto. Ins. Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 166 (contract-construction rules govern insurance policy interpretation)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (use plain meaning for undefined policy terms)
- Shear v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 11 Ohio St.3d 162 (definition of “household” / who dwells under the roof)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard; construing evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)