Johns v. Hopkins, 2013 Ohio 2099

Johns sued Hopkins and State Farm for UM/UIM coverage dispute after a crash in which Hopkins was intoxicated; Bracks’ State Farm policy and Johns’ State Auto UM/UIM policy were involved; Hopkins carried GEICO liability; Johns sought underinsurance proceeds beyond Hopkins’ policy limits; trial court granted State Farm summary judgment based on contract interpretation; language in State Farm policy defines “an insured” narrowly; Ohio statutory offset (R.C. 3937.18(C)) affects available UM/UIM payment but not the policy’s insured definition; the court relied on Wohl and Safeco to interpret UM coverage terms; Johns argues to be an insured under State Farm due to lack of recoverable UM/UIM from other policies; dissent argues Johns should be considered insured under State Farm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johns is an “insured” under State Farm’s UM/UIM provision	Johns argues he fits the fourth definition as someone occupying the car with no recoverable UM/UIM from other policies.	State Farm argues Johns is excluded because he has UM/UIM coverage under another policy and thus is not an insured under State Farm.	No; Johns is not an insured under State Farm’s UM/UIM provision.

Wohl v. Swinney, 118 Ohio St.3d 277 (2008-Ohio-2334) (UM definition narrowly defined; Slattery not an insured under Wohl’s policy)
Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 2006-Ohio-2063 (8th Dist. No. 86124 (2006)) (Policy may exclude insureds who have UM/UIM coverage under another policy)
Pierson v. Wheeland, 2006-Ohio-1316 (9th Dist. No. 22736) (Offset/availability of UM/UIM limits discussed (not controlling who is insured))
Littrell v. Wigglesworth, 91 Ohio St.3d 425 (2001-Ohio-87) (Offset provisions and UM/UIM interpretation guidance)
Holliman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 86 Ohio St.3d 414 (1999-Ohio-116) (Insurers may define who is insured under their policies)