2022 Ohio 2702
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- March 2019: Pierson, driving a Hillsboro Scrap & Metal (HSM) semi-tractor with a 2006 Transcraft trailer loaded with crushed vehicles, struck another vehicle; one death and passenger injuries resulted.
- White Pine Insurance (appellant) issued a commercial auto policy to HSM and denied coverage, citing an endorsement excluding loss "arising out of" use of any "auto" not identified in Item Seven when used to move/tow/haul/carry "autos."
- Item Seven/Schedule of Covered Autos listed only a 1999 International Rollback; Pierson’s truck was not listed.
- HSM/Pierson and co-defendant UFCC moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that White Pine has a duty to defend and indemnify; the trial court ruled the policy ambiguous and entered summary judgment for HSM/Pierson and UFCC (except punitive damages).
- On appeal, the Fourth District reversed: it held the towing/transporting-of-autos endorsement unambiguous, applicable to the facts (tractor towed a trailer), and therefore White Pine has no duty to defend or indemnify for the accident (punitive damages exclusion was previously granted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the towing/transporting-of-autos endorsement is ambiguous | Pierson/HSM: endorsement is irrelevant or internally inconsistent/ambiguous and should be construed for coverage | White Pine: endorsement plainly cross-references Item Seven/Schedule and unambiguously excludes coverage when a non-Item-Seven auto tows/hauls other autos | Held: Not ambiguous; endorsement plainly applies and controls over general policy provisions |
| Whether a connected tractor-trailer is treated as one vehicle so exclusion doesn't apply | Pierson/HSM & UFCC: connected tractor and trailer are one inseparable unit, so truck was not "towing" an auto | White Pine: truck (an "auto" not in Item Seven) was used to tow/move/haul another auto (the trailer) so exclusion applies | Held: Cases about allocation between separate policies do not negate the endorsement; tractor towed trailer under plain meaning, so exclusion applies |
| Whether the crushed vehicles/load must be "autos" to trigger the exclusion | Pierson/HSM & UFCC: load was scrap/crushed vehicles, not operable "autos," so exclusion inapplicable | White Pine: whether the trailer carried autos is moot because trailer attachment itself triggers the exclusion | Held: Moot—under the endorsement exclusion applies when a non-Item-Seven auto tows/hauls a trailer regardless of causal role or cargo |
| Whether applying the exclusion renders coverage illusory or leads to absurd results | Pierson/HSM & UFCC: interpreting the exclusion as White Pine urges would make owned-auto coverage illusory and absurd (only the rollback would ever cover) | White Pine: endorsement is a valid limitation; the policy still confers benefits for covered autos in other circumstances | Held: Not illusory or absurd; endorsement legitimately narrows coverage and endorsements control inconsistencies with the main policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard)
- Laboy v. Grange Indemn. Ins. Co., 144 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio 2015) (policy interpretation seeks parties' intent from the policy read as a whole)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2003) (plain, ordinary meaning controls absent ambiguity)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (Ohio 1978) (contracts construed by their plain language unless absurdity or other meaning appears)
- Sauer v. Crews, 140 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 2014) (determine ambiguity by reading the contract as a whole)
- Contrans, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 836 F.2d 163 (3d Cir. 1988) (when separate policies cover tractor and trailer, courts treat combination as a single vehicle for allocation)
- Blue Bird Body Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 583 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1978) (same: analysis of which policy covers combined tractor-trailer)
- Waddey v. Maryland Cas. Co., 100 S.W.2d 984 (Tenn. 1937) (upholding towing-trailer exclusion where trailer was attached)