Roberts v. Reyes, 2011 Ohio 2608

On July 18, 2001, Chrystal Roberts was injured when David Reyes, driving Iris Reyes's truck insured by State Farm, negligently operated it.
Roberts, through her mother, filed suit against David Reyes and Iris Reyes for injuries arising from the accident.
State Farm filed a declaratory judgment action seeking no duty to defend or indemnify due to a Driver Exclusion Endorsement in Iris's policy.
The Driver Exclusion Endorsement states the insurer is not liable while the excluded driver operates any motor vehicle.
The trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm; this court later affirmed; Roberts argued disputed facts about the exclusion, but failed to raise them below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Driver Exclusion Endorsement creates a genuine dispute over coverage	Roberts contends exclusion was incomplete/deficient so dispute exists	State Farm argues exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for the excluded driver and related entrustment claims	Exclusion is unambiguous; no coverage for excluded driver or entrustment
Whether Iris Reyes’ negligent entrustment is covered under State Farm policy	Roberts asserts potential coverage under broad policy language	State Farm maintains exclusion precludes negligent entrustment claims when driver is excluded	No coverage for negligent entrustment under driver exclusion

Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2003) (policy language controls; unambiguous terms bind the parties)
Neale v. Wright, 585 A.2d 196 (Md. 1991) (driver exclusion preserves insurance while allowing coverage avoidance)
Pierce v. Oklahoma Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 901 P.2d 819 (Okla. 1995) (permissible to deny coverage to excluded driver for negligent entrustment)
National Automotive Insurance Co. v. Castleman, 968 So.2d 819 (La. Ct. App. 2007) (allowing entrustment claims defeats insurer’s bargain when driver is excluded)