2022 Ohio 501
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On Oct. 4, 2019, independent contractor Earl (Herb) Winsted, driving his 2000 Volvo tractor displaying Hafer identification, was in a crash while driving home after completing Hafer work.
- Winsted was covered by two policies: Hafer’s commercial auto policy with Acuity (covering use on Hafer business) and Winsted’s non‑trucking/physical damage policy from GAAC (intended to cover usage when not in lessee/trucking business).
- GAAC’s policy contains a "Trucking or Business Use" exclusion barring coverage for accidents occurring while the covered auto is "in the business of any lessee," including travel from a lessee facility to the vehicle’s regular garage.
- After finishing work at Hafer’s shipping yard Winsted made short personal stops (Ollie’s and a Marathon gas station) but returned to his customary route home before the accident occurred about 5–7 minutes from his residence, where he regularly garaged the truck.
- GAAC sued for declaratory judgment that its policy’s exclusion precludes coverage for the accident; Acuity counterclaimed. The trial court granted GAAC summary judgment; Acuity appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GAAC's "Trucking or Business Use" exclusion excludes coverage because Winsted was "in the business of" Hafer when the accident occurred | GAAC: Winsted was traveling from a Hafer facility to where the truck is regularly garaged and only made minor personal detours; exclusion applies so GAAC owes no coverage | Acuity: Winsted’s detours were substantial (two stops, ~2 hours) and the exclusion’s language does not apply; GAAC policy should cover the accident | The court affirmed: Winsted remained in Hafer’s business; short personal detours did not change that status; the GAAC exclusion applies and GAAC has no coverage obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hybud Equip. Corp. v. Sphere Drake Ins. Co., Ltd., 64 Ohio St.3d 657 (1992) (exclusionary clauses are construed narrowly against insurer but courts must give effect to clear exclusionary intent)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party's and nonmoving party's burdens on summary judgment)
- Illinois Natl. Ins. Co. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., [citation="452 F. App'x 651"] (6th Cir. 2011) (short personal detours do not take an owner‑driver out of the carrier’s business when returning to the customary route/home)
- Marine Ins. Co. v. Frankart, 69 Ill.2d 209 (1977) (owner‑driver remains in carrier's business until returning to haul origin, carrier terminal, or home terminal)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Haack, 125 Ohio App.3d 183 (1997) (similar principle regarding owner‑driver status when returning home)