Goodell v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.
2017 Ohio 8425
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brian Goodell was injured while servicing a Wylie & Sons truck allegedly put into gear by Shawn Pasquale; Goodell obtained workers’ compensation benefits for the injury.
- Goodell sued Pasquale and Motorists Mutual Insurance Company (Motorists), asserting Pasquale was insured under Wylie & Sons’ commercial general liability, business auto, and umbrella policies (as a permissive/omnibus user or volunteer worker), and Motorists refused coverage.
- Procedural history: Motorists moved for summary judgment arguing exclusions (workers’ compensation / employer’s liability / co-employee) barred coverage; the trial court initially granted Motorists summary judgment as to the general liability policy but denied it as to the auto policy.
- Goodell later moved for summary judgment on coverage under the business auto and umbrella policies; Motorists produced a second affidavit from Wylie asserting Pasquale was an hourly employee, but the trial court struck little weight from it and granted summary judgment to Goodell.
- On appeal, Motorists argued (1) exclusions barred coverage under the auto policy; (2) the Wylie affidavit created a genuine issue of fact as to Pasquale’s employee status; and (3) the court erred in denying Motorists’ renewed motion for summary judgment. The Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for Goodell should be defeated by a factual dispute over Pasquale’s employment status | Goodell: affidavits show Pasquale was not Wylie employee but a permissive/independent user; no admissible evidence supports employer-employee relationship | Motorists: Wylie’s later affidavit asserts Pasquale was an hourly employee working 40–50 hrs/wk, creating a triable issue | Court: Wylie’s second affidavit was conclusory and contradictory to existing record; it did not create a genuine issue of material fact, so summary judgment for Goodell stands |
| Whether the workers’ compensation exclusion in the auto policy bars Goodell’s recovery | Goodell: exclusion applies only when injured party sues his employer; Pasquale (omnibus insured) is not Goodell’s employer so exclusion inapplicable | Motorists: exclusion refers to “the insured”/named insured and therefore precludes coverage for workplace injuries even by an omnibus insured | Court: policy language (and severability clause) treats each insured separately; exclusion applies when injured employee sues his employer—here Pasquale was not Goodell’s employer—so exclusion does not bar coverage |
| Whether the employer’s-liability / employee indemnification exclusion bars recovery | Goodell: exclusion requires injured person be an employee of the insured; here insured = Pasquale, who was not Goodell’s employer | Motorists: exclusion covers employees injured in course of employment regardless of which insured is sued | Court: exclusion applies only where the injured party is an employee of that insured; it did not apply because Goodell was employee of Wylie & Sons, not of Pasquale |
| Whether the policy’s severability clause should be read down so exclusions apply across insureds | Goodell: severability clause and plain language treat each insured separately; exclusions refer to “the insured” so do not sweep omnibus insureds into employer exclusions | Motorists: severability should not defeat exclusions; otherwise omnibus insureds get broader coverage than named insured | Court: severability and exclusion wording are consistent; when exclusion references “the insured” it applies to that specific insured and does not override omnibus insured coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (summary judgment de novo standard and review of Civ.R. 56)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment principles)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (contract/plain-language rules in insurance interpretation)
- World Harvest Church v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 148 Ohio St.3d 11 (insurance contract interpretation and endorsements)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. White, 122 Ohio St.3d 562 (severability clauses and their effect on multiple insureds)
- Motorists Ins. Cos. v. BFI Waste Mgmt., 133 Ohio App.3d 368 (omnibus insured under auto policy can be an insured separate from named insured)