Garlock v. Jordan
2025 Ohio 82
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Ashley Garlock sued multiple defendants after her minor daughter, A.G., was bitten in the face by a dog while at a cookout at the defendants’ home in July 2021.
- The property was owned by a trust, with Joy Smith as trustee, and insured by Wyandot Mutual Insurance Company under a homeowners policy.
- The Wyandot policy contained an exclusion for injuries caused by certain breeds—including full or partial Rottweilers—or any dog involved in previous biting incidents.
- Wyandot sought a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify, arguing the excluded breed (Rottweiler) applied to the incident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Wyandot, finding no duty to defend or indemnify, based on the terms of the policy, which was challenged on appeal by Garlock, Smith, and Strong.
- The appeals focused on whether the breed exclusion clause was ambiguous due to lack of punctuation, and whether that ambiguity required construing the policy in favor of coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the insurance policy's dog-breed exclusion ambiguous? | Grammar/punctuation renders exclusion ambiguous; coverage should apply | Exclusion unambiguous; listed breeds always excluded | Exclusion unambiguous; only one reasonable meaning—no coverage |
| Must ambiguity be construed in favor of the insured? | Yes—two reasonable interpretations exist, so coverage required | Only one reasonable interpretation—no ambiguity | No ambiguity, so rule does not apply |
| Was denial of summary judgment for Garlock appropriate? | Denial was error; her interpretation should prevail | Proper, since exclusion applies | Denial affirmed; Garlock's interpretation not reasonable |
| Does Wyandot have a duty to defend or indemnify under policy? | Yes, due to ambiguity | No, due to exclusion | No duty to defend or indemnify |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 54 Ohio St.2d 45 (insurance policies enforced as written absent ambiguity)
- King v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 208 (ambiguities construed against insurer, but only if reasonable interpretations exist)
- Lager v. Miller-Gonzalez, 120 Ohio St.3d 47 (mere potential for ambiguity insufficient for finding ambiguity)
- Wohl v. Swinney, 201 Ohio App. 3d 706 (interpretation should not render contractual language superfluous)