2017 Ohio 8168
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On July 12, 2012 Duane Leon was injured in a motorcycle collision with an unidentified driver; the motorcycle was owned and insured by Terry May under a State Farm policy.
- Leon was not a named insured on May’s policy but sought uninsured motorist (UM) coverage under that policy.
- The policy’s "Legal Action Against Us" clause required full compliance with policy provisions and imposed a three‑year contractual limitations period for filing UM claims.
- Leon’s counsel communicated with State Farm several times (2012–2015); State Farm advised in June 2014 that, because the tortfeasor was unknown, Leon had three years to sue State Farm directly.
- Leon submitted claim materials in August 2015 (after the three‑year anniversary), State Farm denied coverage based on the three‑year limit, and Leon moved for summary judgment arguing impossibility, ambiguity, and unenforceability of the limitations clause.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm; the court of appeals affirmed, rejecting Leon’s impossibility and ambiguity arguments and holding the policy language plain and enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether performance of policy conditions was impossible because the tortfeasor was unknown | Leon: cannot comply with Deciding Fault and Amount requirement to sue both insurer and uninsured motorist when the tortfeasor is unidentified | State Farm: Civ.R. 15(D) and ordinary procedures allow suit naming "name unknown," and insurer instructed Leon he could sue State Farm directly within 3 years | Court: Not impossible; Leon could file against insurer (and designate unknown tortfeasor) and was given explicit direction — assignment overruled |
| Whether the three‑year contractual limitations clause is ambiguous | Leon: clause is susceptible to multiple interpretations and thus unenforceable against him | State Farm: clause is clear that UM claims must comply with policy conditions and be filed within three years | Court: Policy language is plain; no ambiguity exists — assignment overruled |
| Whether paragraph requiring agreement on compensatory damages creates ambiguity about how amount is determined | Leon: language is unclear how insurer and insured will "agree" on damages amount | State Farm: if no agreement, policy expressly permits insured to sue insurer and uninsured motorist to resolve fault and amount | Court: No ambiguity — if no agreement, insured may litigate; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 2002) (standard of appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment must identify absence of genuine issue and supporting record evidence)
- Jackson v. Alert Fire & Safety Equip., Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 48 (Ohio 1991) (nonmoving party cannot rest on pleadings; must present specific facts)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1995) (interpretation of insurance contracts is a question of law)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2003) (insurer policy language given plain and ordinary meaning unless another meaning clearly appears)