Jacubenta v. Cadillac Ranch
2013 Ohio 586
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- This is an Ohio Court of Appeals decision affirming summary judgment that Aspen Insurance UK Ltd. owed no duty to defend/indemnify CR Cleveland for a mechanical bull injury.
- Jacubenta alleges injury from a mechanical bull at the Cadillac Ranch, owned/operated by CR Cleveland.
- CR Cleveland held a commercial general liability policy with Aspen including a Designated Ongoing Operations Endorsement excluding mechanical, animal, or amusement rides.
- Aspen filed a declaratory judgment action; Jacubenta’s personal injury case was consolidated with Aspen’s action.
- The trial court granted Aspen’s summary judgment; the court of appeals affirmed, ruling there were no genuine issues of material fact about policy coverage.
- CR Cleveland argued the Application, Binder, and Declarations affected coverage, and that the policy was ambiguous; these arguments were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the policy exclude coverage for the mechanical bull ride? | Aspen argues the Endorsement excludes mechanical rides. | CR Cleveland argues binder/declarations create broader or different coverage. | No; policy exclusion applies; Aspen not obligated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2003) (interpretation of insurance contracts and plain language controls)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boggs, 27 Ohio St.2d 216 (Ohio 1971) (incorporation of applications/binders requires unequivocal language)
- Fry v. Walters & Peck Agency, Inc., 141 Ohio App.3d 303 (6th Dist. 2001) (duty to read policy; notice and reading obligations)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (waiver of issues not timely raised)