Marusa v. Erie Insurance
136 Ohio St. 3d 118
| Ohio | 2013Background
- In November 2009, Maria Marusa was driving when struck by Officer Canda’s police cruiser, injuring Maria and her daughter Melanie.
- The parties stipulated Officer Canda’s negligence caused the injuries and that the Marusas were not at fault.
- Erie Insurance provided uninsured-motorist (UM) coverage and claimed the Marusas were not legally entitled to recover, relying on Snyder v. Am. Family Ins. Co.
- The trial court granted Erie summary judgment; the court of appeals affirmed, applying Snyder to preclude UM recovery.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, holding the UM definitional provision in Erie’s policy expands UM coverage when the tortfeasor has OPSTLL immunity, and remanded for further proceedings.
- concurrence noted disagreement with Snyder and discussed statutory changes affecting UM/UIM coverage
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the UM coverage exists where the tortfeasor has OPSTLL immunity | Marusa argues definitional UM language expands coverage beyond Snyder. | Erie argues Snyder controls, limiting recovery where tortfeasor is immune. | UM coverage exists; summary judgment reversed; remand. |
| Whether the policy's definitional provision governs over the general "legally entitled to recover" phrase | Definitional language controls and expands coverage. | General phrase can preclude coverage under Snyder. | Definitional provision controls; expands UM coverage, avoiding preclusion. |
| Whether Snyder should control despite 2001 statutory changes to UM/UIM law | Snyder is distinguishable and should be overruled. | Snyder should control as the controlling interpretation. | Snyder not controlling; contract-based interpretation governs; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 114 Ohio St.3d 239 (2007-Ohio-4004) (uninsured-motorist recovery precluded when tortfeasor immune under OPSTLL under Snyder)
- Thom v. Perkins Twp., 2012-Ohio-1568 (2012-Ohio-1568) (affirming UM expansion via definitional language in policy)
- Payton v. Peskins, 2011-Ohio-3905 (2011-Ohio-3905) (appellate decision aligning with expanded UM coverage interpretation)
- Buckeye Union Ins. Co. v. Price, 39 Ohio St.2d 95 (1974) (early guideline on interpreting contract provisions in insurance)
- German Fire Ins. Co. v. Roost, 55 Ohio St. 581, 45 N.E. 1097 (1897) (prestige rule: interpret contract language by entire document; prefer reasonable construction)
- Kelly v. Med. Life Ins. Co., 31 Ohio St.3d 130, 509 N.E.2d 411 (1987) (ambiguities construed against insurer and in favor of insured)