Infield v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2023 Ohio 1199

On December 9, 2019 a left‑of‑center collision killed passenger Bessie Infield and severely injured Larry and Lois Infield; the tortfeasor’s insurer paid $50,000 (policy limits), with Westfield’s consent.
The Infields held a personal auto policy with Westfield providing UM/UIM limits of $300,000; Westfield paid that $300,000 and obtained a release for that policy.
Separately, Westfield issued a Commercial (Business Auto) policy to Infield Farms, LLC and Larry Infield listing specific covered autos (symbols/Item Three); the 2017 Cadillac involved in the accident was not among the covered autos.
Plaintiffs sued for a declaration that UM/UIM coverage also existed under the Commercial policy (plus breach of contract, bad faith, punitive damages); Westfield moved for summary judgment, arguing the Business Auto declarations limit UM/UIM to listed covered autos and an exclusion bars family members in their own non‑covered vehicles.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Westfield; the Infields appealed arguing internal ambiguity between the Declarations and the UM/UIM endorsement should be construed against the insurer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Infields (named insured/family members) are entitled to UM/UIM under the Commercial (Business Auto) policy while occupying the Cadillac that is not listed as a covered auto	Declarations and UM/UIM endorsement conflict; endorsement’s “Who Is An Insured” (naming individuals and family members) does not expressly require occupancy of a listed covered auto, so ambiguity should be construed for coverage	UM/UIM endorsement explicitly modifies the Business Auto Coverage for "covered ‘autos'"; Item Two/Item Three and symbol 07 limit coverage to specifically described autos, and the Cadillac is not a covered auto	No — the Cadillac is not a covered auto and the endorsement applies only to covered autos; summary judgment for Westfield affirmed
Whether any internal ambiguity requires construing policy terms against Westfield (contra proferentem)	The conflicting language between the Declarations (listing covered autos) and the UM/UIM endorsement creates an ambiguity in who qualifies as an insured	The policy read as a whole shows the UM/UIM endorsement expressly modifies the Business Auto Coverage for covered autos; reading the endorsement in isolation would render other provisions meaningless	No ambiguity as a matter of law; the policy is read as a whole and the endorsement’s limitation to covered autos controls

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 797 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio 2003) (insurer‑drafted policy ambiguities are ordinarily construed against insurer; limited the scope of Scott‑Pontzer decisions)
Scott‑Pontzer v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 85 Ohio St.3d 660, 710 N.E.2d 1116 (Ohio 1999) (historically expanded who qualifies as an insured under certain business policies)
Hamilton Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Cos., 86 Ohio St.3d 270, 714 N.E.2d 898 (Ohio 1999) (court’s role is to give effect to parties’ intent and to read contracts as a whole)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party’s burden on summary judgment)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (Ohio standard for summary judgment burdens)
Kelly v. Med. Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130, 509 N.E.2d 411 (Ohio 1987) (plain and ordinary meaning governs contract interpretation)
Gomolka v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 166, 436 N.E.2d 1347 (Ohio 1982) (an insurance policy must be read as a whole; cannot treat provisions in isolation)