2022 Ohio 4725
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On Nov. 8, 2016, Donna Kaiser was seriously injured as a passenger in her Toyota Solara while her daughter (Williams) drove; another vehicle was driven by Troy Goff.
- Donna held an auto policy with Safeco that provided both liability and UM/UIM limits.
- Donna sued Williams and Goff (and sought UM/UIM benefits from Safeco for any fault attributable to Williams).
- Safeco moved for summary judgment, relying on a policy provision that excluded from the definition of an “uninsured motor vehicle” any vehicle owned by (or regularly available to) the insured or a family member.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Safeco; the Kaisers argued on appeal that the UM/UIM exclusion was unenforceable as contrary to public policy, an unconscionable adhesion term, and subject to reformation for mistake.
- The First District affirmed, holding the policy exclusion was enforceable and summary judgment was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy provides UM/UIM coverage for injuries caused by the insured’s daughter driving the insured’s car | Kaiser: UM/UIM should apply because daughter lacked liability exposure to satisfy compensation; insured expected full coverage when both liability and UM/UIM were purchased | Safeco: Policy unambiguously excludes as an “uninsured motor vehicle” any vehicle owned by or regularly available to the insured or family member | Held: Exclusion applies; no UM/UIM for injuries caused by daughter driving the insured vehicle |
| Whether the exclusion is void as against public policy | Kaiser: Exclusion creates an improper “passenger-seat” gap and contravenes Ohio public policy favoring compensation | Safeco: R.C. 3937.18 and Ohio precedent permit insurers to craft such exclusions; legislature’s 2012 amendment limiting intrafamily exclusions only in wrongful-death cases shows intent to retain other limitations | Held: Not contrary to clear public policy; enforcement permitted under existing statute and precedent |
| Whether the policy is an unenforceable adhesion or substantively/procedurally unconscionable | Kaiser: Term is draconian and unexpected; insured lacked meaningful choice | Safeco: Policy language is unambiguous; insureds are charged with reading their policies; plaintiffs offered no evidence of unconscionability | Held: No genuine factual issue of unconscionability; term enforceable |
| Whether the policy should be reformed for mutual or unilateral mistake | Kaiser: Policy should be reformed to reflect parties’ intent to provide UM/UIM in this circumstance | Safeco: No evidence of parties’ intent or mistake in contract formation; reformation is equitable and requires proof | Held: Reformation denied—plaintiffs failed to present evidence of intent or mistake |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (summary-judgment standard)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grace, 123 Ohio St.3d 471 (2009) (R.C. 3937.18 permits insurers to limit/exclude UM/UIM coverage)
- Snyder v. Am. Family Ins., 114 Ohio St.3d 239 (2007) (insurer flexibility under R.C. 3937.18)
- Kyle v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co., 103 Ohio St.3d 170 (2004) (upheld intrafamily exclusion; dissent discussed compensation policy)
- Burnett v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 118 Ohio St.3d 493 (2008) (discussing boundaries of vehicle-based UM/UIM exclusions)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (2003) (contract interpretation principles for insurance policies)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (2007) (role of courts vs. legislature in defining public policy)